Pubdate: Sat, 27 Nov 2004
Source: Arizona Republic (AZ)
Copyright: 2004 The Arizona Republic
Contact:  http://www.arizonarepublic.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/24
Author: Troy Anderson, Los Angeles Daily News
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?214 (Drug Policy Alliance)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?159 (Drug Courts)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment)

DRUG DIVERSION BACKFIRES IN CALIF.

Offenders Treated Under Prop. 36 Fail Rehabilitation

Non-violent drug offenders who were diverted to rehabilitation
programs under Proposition 36 had higher rates of rearrest than those
who remained in the criminal-justice system, a UCLA study released
this week says.

Researchers found that offenders who enrolled in treatment programs
created by the 2000 ballot measure were 48 percent more likely to be
arrested for a drug offense within a year than those who entered
treatment through drug courts or as a term of their probation.

In fact, so many severely addicted people were referred to treatment
rather than the courts that inpatient residential programs were
overwhelmed and many clients were placed instead in outpatient programs.

"Undertreatment appears to be a key ingredient in the recipe for
recidivism among drug abusers, particularly for clients with severe
drug problems," said David Farabee, lead author and research scientist
at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute's Integrated Substance Abuse
programs.

Deborah Baskin, a professor and director of the School of Criminal
Justice and Criminalistics at California State University-Los Angeles,
said Proposition 36 failed to adequately match clients with
appropriate services.

"As programs battle for scarce funding, they also try to fill their
rosters with lower-risk clients," Baskin said.

"In this way, programs can keep their numbers up, success rates high,
and funding streams full. Therefore, it is not a surprise that
severely addicted criminal offenders would be 'shunned' by residential
programs when beds can be filled by candidates who pose fewer and less
complex problems."

Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan, who oversees the drug courts in
Los Angeles County, said the proposition is flawed because it allows
almost anybody convicted of drug-related offenses, except those
convicted of serious and violent felonies, to go into treatment
instead of prison.

It also gives judges less discretion on the types of sanctions,
including jail, for those who test positive for drugs or fail to
complete treatment.

"You've had some fairly dangerous people who were coming in and it's
my belief - and I think it's shared by other drug court judges - that
Proposition 36 is simply too lightweight of a program for those who
are severely addicted, afflicted with mental illness or have a long
criminal history," Tynan said.

The UCLA research team examined treatment participation and recidivism
rates of 688 clients from 43 programs in 13 counties diverted to drug
treatment between July 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2001. Los Angeles County
was not among the those studied.

"Our findings encompass only the early months of Prop. 36," Farabee
said. "New programs often need time to become established and to
operate as intended. Program outcomes could therefore change."

Carol Morris-Lowe, planning director for the Los Angeles County
Alcohol and Drug Program Administration, said she believes the program
has had greater success since its first six months and she is
conducting a study on recidivism rates using two years of county data.

"Last year alone, we had more than 10,000 people in treatment because
of Proposition 36," Morris-Lowe said. "For many of these clients, this
is their first time to receive treatment.

"Addiction is a chronic disease, and with treatment, success is hard
to define. We find that the more someone is exposed to treatment, the
better chance there is of them becoming a recovering person."

The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act represented a major shift
in criminal justice policy when it was passed in November 2000 by 61
percent of voters statewide.

Tynan said he is working with other judges statewide on legislation
that would fix flaws in the proposition so that it targets first- and
second-time drug offenders in need of treatment. Tynan also hopes
those improvements will persuade lawmakers to renew the act when it
expires in 2006.

"The true first- and second-time offenders usually do pretty well in
the programs," Tynan said. "But for the people who have been using
drugs for many years, have mental illnesses and long criminal
histories, we're just not set up to handle them.

"I hope we can get Proposition 36 to the Legislature to strengthen it
and make it more effective. I think we're squandering at least half of
the money now."

Statewide, the act allocates more than $120 million a year for
treatment programs, including $30 million annually in the county.

"When you compare treatment to jail, it's obvious we are going to save
hundreds of millions of dollars and at the same time provide people
with the skills they need to reduce or quit drugs and stop committing
crime," said Glenn Backes, health policy director at the Drug Policy
Alliance in Sacramento. "Instead, they will be with their families and
going to work rather than cramming our jails with non-violent offenders.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin