CONVICTS BACK ON STREETS

WASHINGTON - Here and in state capitals across America, there's a wave of
anguish: What do we do about the 585,000 convicts who will come out of
federal and state prisons this year? And who'll keep coming out in huge
numbers each year, as far down the road as we can see?

The easy political formula since the '70s has been to lock up wrongdoers,
generally with set sentences so no softheaded judge or parole board could
set them free prematurely. Rehabilitation was dismissed as worthless, drug
treatment pitifully underfunded.

So now we have to reap the whirlwind. Whether or not they were abused or
sodomized in prison, most prisoners emerge embittered. Few have job skills.
Many are illiterate. Frequently they have no place to stay. Many got
illicit drugs behind bars, maintaining their drug addictions.

At current recidivism rates, 62 percent of state prisoners will be
rearrested for some crime within three years, and 41 percent will return to
prison.

Big numbers in, big numbers out-what did we expect? Ex-cons may be a few
years older and less likely to commit violent crimes. But if they're hooked
on drugs, if they've been regimented and isolated from normal work and
family pressures, the bigger wonder would be a quick adjustment and going
straight.

So the Clinton Justice Department wants to spend $145 million on drug
treatment, court supervision and job training for some returning convicts.
With 4.1 million offenders already under supervision, it's your classic
drop in the bucket.

Thirty years of law and order, trying to scare people out of offenses with
heavier sentences, have failed abysmally to stem crime, says ex-Watergate
offender Charles W. Colson. Colson's Justice Fellowship and Prison
Fellowship Ministries seek to create person-to-person bridges between
prisoners and communities, focusing on offender-victim reconciliation,
volunteers mentoring offenders, and assisting ex-offenders in finding a job.

Scattered across America, other imaginative programs are trying - as Colson
puts it - to restore the right moral balance to a community fractured by
crime.''

Consider the San Francisco Bay Area's Garden Project, created and directed
since 1985 by reformer Catherine Sneed. Inmates at the San Bruno County
Jail can volunteer to work at an organic farm and greenhouse on the
premises. On release, they can graduate to a paid job, working a minimum of
16 hours a week, at a city community garden. But not without stiff rules:
Participants must stay drug-free, pay court-ordered child support, work for
a high school GED or take college courses, get a California driver's
license and open a bank account. Recidivism among Garden Project
participants? It's 24 percent, compared with 55 percent for nonparticipants.

However promising and heartening such programs may be, they can't
substitute for a rational American corrections system. Costs, public fears,
recidivism will all continue to mount, barring two fundamental reforms:
well-planned rehabilitation for prisoners, and drug treatment for all who
need it.

Though rejected by law-and-order politicos starting in the '70s, classic
rehabilitation had dual common-sense goals-to protect the public, and to
help offenders return to a crime-free life in the community.

Would it cost big money to recreate such services now? Of course. But
rationally, we really have no other choice.

Nor can we avoid, ultimately, another big bill to pay: universal drug
treatment for addicted offenders. High percentages of arrestees test
positive for illicit drugs; 60 percent of inmates say they were under the
influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their offense.

My columns about drugs and prisons have evoked dozens of letters from
inmates pleading for drug treatment. Virtually every study says drug rehab
programs work-indeed whether they're entered under legal pressure or chosen
voluntarily.

It's simple folks: $$$$$. Not whether we'll spend it, but how.