CALIFORNIA'S BIG TASK FALLS ON TYRONE JENKINS

SAN FRANCISCO - The front line of drug-policy reform in America now runs
through California, which soon will embark on the nation's largest
experiment in treating rather than punishing drug-use offenders.

The program is big and bold. But its success will be mapped in the
interaction between individuals like Lloyd, a local drug addict, and Tyrone
Jenkins, his probation officer.

Lloyd (not his real name) was convicted of cocaine and heroin possession
two years ago, put on probation, and assigned to Mr. Jenkins. Since then,
the case has fallen into a cycle of treatment and relapse, treatment and
relapse.

Finally, Jenkins "went Hollywood," as he calls it. He threatened to send
Lloyd to prison for violating his probation, something Jenkins can't really
do unilaterally, but a tactic he often employs, with considerable
theatrical flourish, to frighten his charges into compliance. The case is
now back before a judge.

Like many of the officers of San Francisco's reform-minded Adult Probation
Department, Jenkins is a staunch advocate of treatment. But he's also
ambivalent about whether California's new policy will work.

For treatment to work, the drug user "has to want it up here," says
Jenkins, tapping his head. But Jenkins has found that the "stick" of
threatened imprisonment can help drug offenders "want it" even before any
kind of internal transformation takes place. It's that "stick" he fears losing.

That, however, is one of the underpinnings of California's sweeping new
effort, approved overwhelmingly by voters last month. The guiding
philosophy is that "sticks" and coercion haven't worked in the war on
drugs, which has packed the nation's prisons with nearly 500,000 people on
drug convictions during the past 20 years.

Further, reform advocates say society should reserve its punishment in
drug-related cases for behavior that threatens or harms others, rather than
actions that only damage oneself. Punish the manufacture and selling of
drugs, say reformers, but not its use. Heavy use and dependency are a type
of illness that will respond best to treatment, in their view.

The California approach is not new in principle. Arizona pioneered emphasis
on treatment rather than punishment for nonviolent drug-use offenders with
an initiative passed in 1996 and reaffirmed in 1998. New York has by
judicial decree moved to greater emphasis on treatment.

But what has gone on before is considered nothing more than a lab
experiment compared with the scope of what is about to take place in the
nation's largest state.

"This is the single most significant development in drug-policy reform in
decades," says Ethan Nadelmann of the Lindesmith Center in New York. "It's
momentous."

Indeed, 35,000 drug offenders annually will be diverted from prison and
jail into treatment programs, according to California's Legislative
Analyst's Office. After accounting for the cost of the vast new treatment
program, the state is projected to save $500 million during the next five
years in reduced prison-operation and construction costs.

The treatment-versus-punishment track record so far seems to be promising,
if incomplete.

In Arizona, an analysis by the state Supreme Court found treatment programs
were achieving a "high level" of compliance. The basis of that assessment
is a statistic showing that 76 percent of drug offenders in treatment had
negative urinalyses when tested during the 1997-98 fiscal year.

Several earlier studies, including one from RAND, have found that a dollar
spent on treatment saves $7 on societal costs associated with incarceration
and punishment.

California's approach goes further than Arizona's in many respects. For
instance, parolees of nonviolent crimes who are arrested for drug use are
not sent back to prison, but rather to treatment. Also, a felony drug
offender can effectively erase the offense if he or she completes a
treatment program.

The ballot initiative requires the state to spend $120 million annually on
treatment during the next five years, and one of its most controversial
components is that it prohibits use of any of those funds for drug testing.
While judges and treatment centers can continue to require testing, those
behind California's policy were clearly trying to force new spending on
other aspects of treatment.

"Coerced abstinence is not the same as good drug treatment," says Mr.
Nadelmann.

The new policy has plenty of critics. Some believe a more lenient approach
to drug use sends a dangerous message of tolerance to the nation's youths,
and that this message is spreading. There was plenty to feed that anxiety
in November, when voters in Nevada and Colorado approved use of marijuana
for medical purposes, while those in Oregon and Utah set stricter
requirements for asset forfeiture in drug cases.

Even some favoring drug reform say the California plan has inadequate
supervision and monitoring provisions. What probation officer Jenkins
worries most about is his effectiveness as his caseload rises. Probation
officers across the state will be the primary managers of drug offenders,
and many are worried that they will be swamped.

There are also concerns that California's treatment programs are not up to
the task.

Members of the state Legislature have already established an oversight
committee to consider more funding for treatment, probation functions, and
drug testing.

For his part, Jenkins is taking a wait-and-see attitude, knowing from
experience that both punishment and treatment have their limits.
Reiterating what he thinks is the key to success for drug abusers, he taps
his head and says, "you have to be ready here."