Pubdate: Sun, 19 Nov 2000
Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA)
Copyright: 2000 San Francisco Chronicle
Contact:  http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/
Forum: http://www.sfgate.com/conferences/
Author: Lonny Shavelson

DRUG TREATMENT NEW YORK-STYLE

CALIFORNIA and New York have revolutionary plans to send drug addicts 
to treatment instead of jail. In California, addicts arrested for 
nonviolent drug offenses, some 36,000 a year, will be directed to 
treatment under Proposition 36's new rules. And New York's chief 
judge has ordered that state's nonviolent addicts, 10,000 a year, to 
rehab. But the devil is in the details, and New York's programs are 
more likely to succeed.

California's Legislature and drug rehabilitation agencies, now 
deciding how to spend $120 million a year in Prop. 36 treatment 
funds, would do well to look east for guidance.

New York's new system is modeled on its Drug Treatment Courts that 
reduced offenders' rearrest rates from 35 to 14 percent. But in 
California, Drug Courts with similar successes are being cut out by 
Prop. 36.

Campaign manager Dave Fratello argues that money to Drug Courts would 
"go to judges, staff, administrative costs and monitoring expenses, 
with little left to pay for actual treatment services. Proposition 36 
makes it a priority to invest in treatment programs, rather than Drug 
Courts."

But in implementing Prop. 36, the state Legislature should expand the 
Drug Courts, as New York has decided to do.

New York's Drug Treatment Courts provide "supervision and monitoring 
of addicted offenders by judges and others throughout the treatment 
process, continued drug testing and strict systems of sanctions and 
rewards to motivate defendants to succeed in treatment." California's 
Prop. 36 provides for no more specific monitoring than: "The court 
shall require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug 
treatment program." Instead of regular visits with a judge, as New 
York's system dictates, a drug offender in a rehab program in 
California will be monitored only by quarterly reports to a probation 
officer.

While New York will utilize frequent drug testing to track addicts in 
rehab,  Prop. 36 foolishly prohibits its funds from being used for 
drug testing. Drug offenders who relapse will fall through the cracks 
until deep into their addictions.

Recognizing that rehabilitation involves lifestyle changes as well as 
stopping drug abuse, the New York system coordinates "education, job 
training, basic health care or housing assistance. Drug Court case 
managers and judges will track the progress being made in these 
areas." Prop. 36 states only that the court may impose such 
requirements as vocational and literacy training.

Prop. 36 also limits rehab to one year; New York provides for more 
than one year if needed. In California, a drug offender can graduate 
from rehab when there is "reasonable cause to believe that the 
defendant will not abuse controlled substances . . ." In New York, 
the addict "must satisfy other requirements likely to encourage a 
drug-free lifestyle, such as having a job or obtaining a G.E.D. or 
vocational degree."

It will not take major legislation for California to mirror New 
York's system of working closely with drug offenders in court-ordered 
rehabilitation. The state's Drug Courts, 109 in all, are already 
following that model, with outstanding success rates.

Prop. 36 provides $120 million a year to beef up our drug 
rehabilitation system. The majority of those funds should go to 
expanding our Drug Courts, which have proven track records in guiding 
offenders through rehab and keeping them from further arrests. Rather 
than reinvent the wheel, we should put our money where we know it 
works.

Lonny Shavelson is a Berkeley emergency room physician and author. 
His most recent book, based on following addicts in San Francisco as 
they go through rehab, is "Hooked: Our Nations' Misguided Drug 
Treatment Strategy and How to Make it Work."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Josh Sutcliffe