Pubdate: Sat, 29 Sep 2001
Source: New York Times (NY)
Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company
Contact:  http://www.nytimes.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/298
Author: Fox Butterfield

NEW DRUG-OFFENDER PROGRAM DRAWS UNEXPECTED CLIENTS

LOS ANGELES -- Christine Tello, her hair dyed flamboyant pink, mumbled as 
she tried to explain to Judge Stephen Marcus why she had not obeyed his 
order to report to a residential drug treatment center.

She was supposed to have been one of the lucky first drug addicts sentenced 
under Proposition 36, a voter-backed initiative that mandates treatment 
instead of prison for first- and second-time offenders who use or possess 
drugs. But Ms. Tello told the judge, "I forgot, I lost the paper," and then 
added, "I didn't like the place."

It has been less than three months since the law took effect on July 1, and 
there are no statewide statistics on its effectiveness. But cases like Ms. 
Tello's concern many judges, prosecutors and drug treatment providers.

Some of the problems that critics of Proposition 36 predicted have not 
arisen. California's treatment centers have not been overwhelmed, because 
far fewer drug offenders than anticipated have pleaded guilty under the new 
law. But among those who have sought treatment, there have been far more 
severe addicts than anyone expected, with the added complications of mental 
illness, homelessness and unemployment.

"One of the lessons we are learning is that we are getting a lot of people 
who are so addicted they just aren't ready for treatment," Judge Marcus 
said in his courtroom in the vast downtown Los Angeles County criminal 
courts building. "Their addiction is so powerful it controls everything in 
their lives."

In Los Angeles County, which accounts for one-fourth of all California drug 
arrests, about 30 percent of offenders who pleaded guilty under Proposition 
36 have since had bench warrants issued for their arrests because they 
failed to show up at treatment centers or did not return to court for a 
review of their progress, Judge Marcus said.

"That is an ominous sign in such a short time," he added.

Similarly in Sacramento County, planners projected that 7 out of 10 
offenders under Proposition 36 would need minimal treatment because they 
were casual drug users with supportive families or jobs. Instead, county 
officials say, more than half have turned out to be hard-core addicts 
needing maximum treatment.

Supporters of Proposition 36, which won 61 percent of the vote, contend 
that the law is working well.

"The basic goals are being met," said Bill Zimmerman, executive director of 
the Campaign for New Drug Policies, the advocacy group in Santa Monica that 
sponsored Proposition 36.

"The key thing is, people who formerly were being incarcerated are now 
getting treatment," Mr. Zimmerman said, so the criminal justice system is 
being forced to change.

And Mr. Zimmerman insisted that the high numbers of arrest warrants did not 
bother him.

"The doctors tell us that we can't expect more than one-third of these 
serious addicts to recover," he said. "That's a very low number, but it is 
a lot higher than the number who were being cured in jail or prison without 
treatment. And there are the other not-so-serious addicts we can save."

The success of Proposition 36 is important beyond California, the nation's 
most populous state. Mr. Zimmerman's group has been trying to get similar 
initiatives on the ballot for the November 2002 elections in Florida, 
Michigan, Missouri and Ohio.

Supporters of such measures think the political winds are shifting their 
way after a 20-year trend toward ever-tougher criminal laws. This year more 
than half a dozen states have quietly rolled back some of their strictest 
anticrime measures, including those imposing mandatory minimum sentences 
and forbidding early parole. The new laws reflect an era of falling crime, 
budget crunches and the skyrocketing cost of running prisons. Among the 
states that have changed their laws as the prison population nationwide has 
quadrupled over the last two decades are Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, 
Mississippi and North Dakota.

One of the main selling points of Proposition 36 was that it promised to 
reduce the number of inmates in California's costly prison system, the 
nation's largest, and it may be succeeding. As of mid-September, the number 
of inmates in California had fallen since July 1 by 1,900, to 159,000, said 
Dan Carson, an analyst for the nonpartisan Legislative Analysts Office.

Not all the decline is attributable to Proposition 36, Mr. Carson said, but 
the drop is still significant in a state that in 1994 passed the nation's 
toughest three-strikes law, mandating sentences of 25 years to life for 
third-time felony offenders.

In Los Angeles, county officials had originally projected that an average 
of 80 people a day would accept sentencing under Proposition 36 and then be 
sent to treatment. But only about 45 defendants a day have done so, said 
David Davies, the chief of adult field services for the Los Angeles 
Probation Department.

Mr. Davies believes the main reason for the low number is that many 
defendants eligible for the new law -- those charged only with drug use or 
possession and no related crime like assault or robbery -- are choosing to 
plead guilty under the old law, where the sentence may be simple probation 
or a few weeks in jail. This is especially true for those charged with a 
misdemeanor, a less serious crime, rather than a felony, Mr. Davies said.

If they plead guilty under Proposition 36, they will be given treatment, 
but it could last for months and they would be on probation for three 
years. If they violate that probation by skipping treatment more than twice 
or failing a drug test twice, they could be sent to prison for years, said 
Mike Demby, the deputy head Los Angeles public defender.

"We are concerned they could have more exposure under Proposition 36," Mr. 
Demby said. "So there are cases where we would advise our clients not to 
plead under Proposition 36 and stay with the old law, even though we want 
people to get into treatment."

The unexpectedly high proportion of severe addicts accepting Proposition 36 
comes in part from a decline in the numbers of people charged with lesser 
crimes, officials say. But it also represents the reality of drugs and the 
streets, said Mr. Davies, the probation official.

The average person pleading guilty under the new law has had 16 previous 
arrests, Mr. Davies said.

"This is a tough group," he said. "They are not teenagers who just 
experimented with drugs for the first time."

One of the biggest concerns for everyone involved is whether there is 
enough money for treatment. Proposition 36 appropriated $120 million a year 
for the entire state, which under a complex formula translates to only 
$2,000 per defendant in Los Angeles, Mr. Davies said. Because the cheapest 
residential treatment costs $75 a day in Los Angeles, that amounts to less 
than a month of treatment.

Studies have shown great success even for hard-core addicts in residential 
treatment if they stay at least 12 to 18 months, said Liz Stanley Salazar, 
regional director for Phoenix Houses of California, a major drug treatment 
program.

But the immediate problem, Ms. Salazar and others like Judge Marcus say, is 
that there is no enforcement mechanism to guarantee that defendants like 
Ms. Tello, whom the judge ordered temporarily held in the county jail, will 
go from the courtroom to assessment centers to treatment and then back to 
court for review. The county is huge, and many defendants lack cars to get 
them to their treatment center, Judge Marcus said.

In the end, the judge said, treatment that is not well financed, and not 
backed by legal sanctions, may be no more effective in curing addiction 
than prison itself.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Lou King