LOOKING PAST THE REFORM OF DRUG LAWS

Reember "deinstitutionalization"? That's government-speak for the
systematic discharge of mental patients from large psychiatric institutions
so they could get their treatment in community-based programs.

The policy, which goes back to the 1950's, was a humane reaction to
deplorable conditions in many of the state institutions, and it made good
theoretical sense. But financing of community programs failed to keep pace
with the need, leaving thousands of seriously ill people, some prone to
violence, homeless.

A classic case of unintended consequences — the scourge of government.

Could it happen again? The question is prompted by Gov. George E. Pataki's
welcome proposal to soften the state's Rockefeller-era drug laws. His plan
was greeted as a serious starting point, even by advocates of wholesale
reform. The rigid laws, which can consign low-level, nonviolent drug
offenders to the same prison terms as murderers, have been under attack for
decades, and now a consensus for change finally seems possible in Albany.

But along with the elation, there is concern. What if the drug reform is
flawed?

The potential pitfall, as usual, centers on money. The governor proposes
shorter prison terms for some offenders and reduced sentences for some
inmates. Most of these are people who have been, or still are, addicted to
drugs. And the recidivism rate is high.

Nationwide studies show that if parolees are not treated in prison — and
most are not — up to 75 percent return to using drugs within three months
of their release. In New York, half of the released inmates return to the
prison system within five years — and most inmates abuse drugs.

Studies also show that drug treatment can cut down on recidivism by 25
percent. "Returning people from prison to their old environment poses an
enormous risk of relapse," said Jeremy Travis, a senior fellow at the Urban
Institute in Washington. "It's the same gang, the same pusher, the same
frustrations. The question for New York is what happens to these people
when they are released?"

The governor addresses this on a small scale, calling for a pilot project
for inmates returning to New York City. About 100 inmates at a time would
spend up to three months in the Queensboro Correctional Facility, getting
help with readjustment from state agencies and the Vera Institute of
Justice; the project would not include drug treatment, though, nor is it
financed yet.

NEITHER is there money in the governor's new budget for the residential
drug treatment he suggests for some offenders. And since his proposal is
still just a press release, not a bill, it is not clear how many people
would be candidates for drug treatment, or where the financing would come from.

"I can guarantee the governor is not going to let the situation go by,"
said Katherine N. Lapp, state commissioner of Criminal Justice Services.
"We all understand that treatment is part of any proposal."

Ms. Lapp said some of the money could come from public assistance programs,
and noted that with fewer people in prisons, the state could use the
savings for drug treatment. But how many inmates would be released, how
many offenders would be spared imprisonment, and, given the propensity of
released inmates to land behind bars again, would the prison census drop
enough to finance drug treatment?

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, the Manhattan Democrat who will soon
propose an alternative to the governor's plan, said he was worried about
content, not cost; he argues that Mr. Pataki's approach doesn't reduce the
sentences of enough low-level offenders. But the money will be there, Mr.
Silver said.

Others are a bit more skeptical. Robert Gangi, executive director of the
Correctional Association of New York and a fervent advocate of overhauling
the drug laws, said the cost was still unclear and the governor's proposal
would change anyway in combat with the Assembly. "Specifics are less
important than the political fact that he has stepped forward with a reform
proposal," Mr. Gangi said.

As for cost, "Katie Lapp attempted to assure us that the money was going to
be there, but that assurance is built on sand so far. We would much rather
see hard figures included in the state budget."

So would Paul N. Samuels, director of the Legal Action Center, a nonprofit
group that advocates for expanding alternatives to incarceration. He
recalled the sad history of deinstitutionalization: "We need to learn from
that mistake and not repeat it."