Pubdate: Mon, 06 Feb 2006
Source: Lawrence Journal-World (KS)
Copyright: 2006 The Lawrence Journal-World
Contact: http://www.ljworld.com/site/submit_letter
Website: http://www.ljworld.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1075
Author: Dave Ranney
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/rehab.htm (Treatment)

BILL WOULD EXPAND TREATMENT FOR DRUG OFFENDERS

Some Nonviolent Inmates Havent Benefited From
Recent Changes In Law

More than 150 nonviolent drug users are sitting in Kansas
prisons.

State Rep. Bill McCreary, R-Wellington, says they would be better off
in rehabilitation programs.

"These people are costing us a ton of money - and when they get out,
they're not going to be any better than when they went in," McCreary
said. I don't think that does anybody any good."

McCreary, 73, has sponsored a bill -  House Bill 2231 -  that would
let 156 inmates ask their sentencing judges to put them in drug
treatment programs rather than prison.

In Kansas, drug offenders sentenced after Nov. 1, 2003, are sent to
rehabilitation programs rather than prison. The 156 inmates affected
by McCreary's bill were sentenced before Nov. 1, 2003.

"That doesn't seem fair to me," McCreary said. "It doesn't seem right
that two people can commit the same crime and end up serving
completely different sentences."

McCreary's bill passed the House last year after its scope was limited
to inmates sentenced for drug possession.

Setback for bill

The bill, now in the Senate, suffered a major setback last month when
the 16-member Kansas Sentencing Commission voted to oppose it.

"I was a little bit surprised," said Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, a
member of the sentencing commission and chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee.

The commission, Vratil said, raised several concerns:

* Judges have no way to know which inmates are good candidates for
rehabilitation and which are not.

* The process for appealing judges decisions is unclear.

* Some inmates sentences were subject to plea bargains that
prosecutors would not have made if they had known rehabilitation -
rather than incarceration -  was the likely outcome.

* Treatment is costing more than expected.

But McCreary argued that treatment was considerably cheaper than
incarceration, that prosecutors were free to cite plea-bargain
concerns in their arguments against the change in sentence, and that
judges were capable of weighing an inmates request.

"If a judge cant look at a case and decide, then who can?" McCreary
said.

Still, Vratil, whos supported rehabilitation-over-incarceration bills
in the past, is not optimistic.

"I don't sense a whole lot of interest in making drug treatment
retroactive," he said.

The lack of interest coincides with efforts to toughen sentences for
sex offenders.

"A politician's worst fear is appearing soft on crime - that's what's
going here, said Peter Ninemire, a spokesman for Families Against
Mandatory Minimums, a national organization opposed to harsh sentences
for crimes attributed to addiction.

Ninemire, of Wichita, spent much of the 1990s in prison for marijuana
trafficking.

"It's just incredible to me that were keeping these ... people in
prison at four times the cost of treatment. And we know theyre not
getting any better while theyre in prison," he said. "So guess what?
Were spending more to ensure worse outcomes."

In Kansas, each inmate costs the state about $22,000 a
year.

Challenges for inmates

Paul Goseland, 53, spent 13 years in Kansas prisons on drug charges.
He said McCreary's bill included a provision that was sure to
discourage inmates who weren't serious about beating their addictions.

"You don't get credit for the time you're in treatment, which, if it's
intense, can last 18 months," he said. "So if you don't make it,
you'll be adding to your sentence."

"A lot of guys won't take that risk," he said. "They'll just do their
time, get out and take their chances."

Also, inmates are well aware that "treatment is no picnic," said
Goseland, who lives in Wichita. He's been on parole since May 2005.

"If you're going to make it, you have to be serious about it," he
said. "And if you're serious about it, it's a lot of hard work."

Positive results

McCreary's initiative piggybacks onto Senate Bill 123, a 2003 law that
directed judges to put first- and second-time drug offenders in
treatment rather than prison.

So far, the new law appears to be working.

"All the indications are really good," said Patricia Biggs, executive
director at the sentencing commission.

"The problem is we haven't been at it long enough to draw too many
conclusions," she said, noting that treatment often lasts 12 to 18
months, followed by 12 months of supervision.

Keeping track of how offenders fare without supervision, Biggs said,
is critical measurement.

"We don't know that yet because were not there yet," she said. "But
we're getting there."

Still, Biggs said the programs current recidivism rate is below 10
percent.

"That's about what its been here," said David Ruhlen, who runs the
DCCCA outpatient treatment program in Lawrence.

"Since last March, we've had 21 (offenders) enter the program -  seven
successfully completed the program, nine are still in, three were
referred to in-patient, one absconded and one ended up back in jail."

Treatment is expensive

Ruhlen praised Senate Bill 123.

"Anytime you offer someone treatment for an addiction, its a good
thing," Ruhlen said.

It's not been cheap. Earlier this year, the sentencing commission
asked the Legislature for an additional $2.8 million for the fiscal
year that ends June 30.

"We're getting in the number of people we expected - about 1,850 a
year - but the cost per person is higher because their addictions are
more serious than we expected," Biggs said. "The more serious the
addiction, the higher the cost."

Biggs said the sentencing commission expected to spend $4,400 per drug
offender. Actual costs are closer to $4,600.

Also, many have needed to remain in treatment longer than
projected.

But McCreary and Ninemire cited reports that Senate Bill 123 has kept
about 400 offenders out of prison, saving the state millions of dollars.

Not all of the 1,850 offenders referred to treatment would have been
sentenced to prison prior to the new law taking effect.

"This is saving the state money," McCreary said. "It may cost us
something in the short run, but it'll save money in the long run."

Emphasis on prisons

But Vratil warned that for many legislators, spending more on prisons
has become synonymous with being tough on crime.

"Look at the sex-offender bill thats passed the Senate  it increases
demand by 994 beds," he said. "There's no way we can do that without
building a new prison or adding on to ones we have. We're at
99-percent capacity."

McCreary isn't giving up. If his bill passes in the Senate, he said
he'll push to include sentences tied to drugs and addiction.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Derek