INCARCERATION VS. REHABILITATION

Prop. 36 Gives A New Perspective On The War On Drugs

Is drug addiction a criminal problem, a health problem, or both?
Proposition 36 - the drugs, probation, and treatment program initiative -
attempts to offer a solution to what is definitely a social problem,
according to a study by the Justice Policy Institute.

"Between 1980 and 1997, while the number of people in the United States
entering prison for violent offenses doubled, non-violent offenses tripled,
and drug offenses increased 11-fold," reads a portion of the study printed
in the League of Women Voters' analysis of the issue. "That's not 11
percent, that's 1100 percent," points out League member Peggy Guyre.

Its proponents argue that Prop. 36 will slow down that increase with a
combination of probation and court-supervised treatment services for first
and second offenders found guilty only of possession or drug use (or both).
In effect, the proposition would substitute incarceration with treatment.

If Prop. 36 passes, judges would no longer have the option to send an
offender to jail right off the bat. Instead, drug users would be infused
with $120 million from the state. To encourage a holistic approach to the
issue, money would also be made available for literacy and job skills programs.

Of the 45,000 people imprisoned in the state of California for drug
offenses, close to 20,000 are serving sentences for possession, according
to California Department of Corrections spokesperson Russ Heimerich.

Is $120 million divided among California's 58 counties enough to launch
effective drug treatment programs for those 20,000 people? Proponents say
it's a start. They add that because drugs are so easily accessible in
prison, keeping drug users out of prison can make it easier for them to
kick their habit.

By diverting nonviolent addicts from prison into treatment programs, the
initiative also promises to reduce state prison costs by between $200
million and $250 million. The math is simple: It costs about $23,000 per
year to incarcerate a drug user. It costs only about $4,000 to provide
treatment for that same drug user.

But even people who agree that treatment is the answer to our state's drug
problem argue over whether incarceration needs to be kept as a tool to make
treatment programs effective. Opponents also say that by limiting the
courts' options the proposition could undermine drug courts that are
already rehabilitating users.

The San Luis Obispo County drug court, which has been in operation for a
little over a year, is currently working with 17 felony drug offenders. It
takes a collaborative approach to managing drug possession cases. Working
together, local judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and treatment
specialists devise programs to help offenders deal with their substance abuse.

But unlike the initiative, which would replace incarceration with treatment
programs at the outset, an offender in the new SLO county drug court
program begins with a 30-day period of incarceration, and the threat of
imprisonment hangs over him or her for the duration of the program.

While incarcerated, felons in the drug court program receive drug abuse
counseling four days a week. After 30 days, they're placed on probation.
They continue in a drug treatment program for a period of 18 months.

"Their entire probation period is anywhere from 3 to 5 years. But at any
time throughout their probation period they can be sent back to jail if
they fail a drug test," explained Myron Nalepa, San Luis Obispo County
acting chief of probation.

Nalepa said that under Prop. 36, offenders receive treatment for only 12
months, a period he terms "too short."

Also, unlike drug court, where people can be sent back to jail right away
if they don't stay clean, under Prop. 36, drug users aren't sent to jail
until after their third violation. For opponents of Prop. 36, that's not
strict enough.

Dee Krogh, a drug and alcohol counselor with Life Steps and vocational
counselor for drug court, said she is "definitely not voting for Prop. 36."
Removing the possibility of returning to jail as an incentive to stick with
the program "takes the teeth out of the drug court program," she said.

"If it is no longer a crime to use [drugs] or have paraphernalia, how do we
get people to seek help? Drug addiction takes away people's ability to make
decisions. We have to have some backup. If they relapse, we have to be able
to say, 'OK, go sit in jail for 30 days and think about it.' If they take
away that piece of the program, where can we sit them down and keep them
safe from themselves?" she asked.

Prop. 36 also does not provide funds for drug testing or added probation
services - another element Myron Nalepa, the probation official, doesn't like.

"Testing is a critical component of a drug treatment program, providing a
high level of accountability," he said.

Arizona passed a measure similar to California's Prop. 36 in 1996. Now the
state sends drug offenders to treatment programs rather than to jail. The
debate over whether it's working is still going on.

According to one report, in Arizona some 77 percent of people treated under
the new program remained drug-free after completing treatment, and by
treating them instead of jailing offenders the state saved $2.5 million.
The same report reported that in 1998 the state was estimated to be 78
percent drug-free.

"It's been a success in Arizona, based on those statistics," said Judge
Randy Gerber, of the state court of appeals in Phoenix. "In relation to
jail sanctions, we can still enforce severe forms of punishments during
probation, such as house arrests."

But Zachary Dal Pra, chief of adult probation for Maricopa County, Arizona,
was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that not having incarceration
as an option is very frustrating.

"We've got twice as many treatment dollars, and that's wonderful - but I
don't think the verdict is in yet," Dal Pra said.