THREAT OF JAIL MAY FORCE TREATMENT

Prop. 302 Would Put Pressure On Drug Offenders

Psychologist Larry Sideman and his staff spend a good chunk of their time
chasing non-violent drug offenders sent by the courts to the Phoenix clinic
for treatment.

But their power of persuasion often fails, and annoyed judges and
prosecutors can't lock the drug offenders up for refusing rehabilitation.
That would change if Proposition 302 passes on the November ballot.

It would tweak an existing law that mandates that first- and second- time
offenders be diverted to treatment instead of put behind bars.

"It's very difficult to get some of them to our door," said Sideman, the
clinical director at the Treatment Assessment Screening Center in Phoenix.
"It's very frustrating."

The often fruitless efforts include at least six attempts to lure drug
offenders to do their court-ordered treatment at the clinic.

Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley, the proposition's chief proponent,
argues that the threat of jail would prompt non-violent offenders to show
up for their treatment. And if they didn't, he says, at least a judge would
have the discretion of locking them up.

"The goal is to get them to treatment," Romley said, adding that between 25
to 35 percent who are ordered to treatment don't comply.

But opponents say the threat of incarceration would do nothing to combat
drug addiction.

They note that more than 5,000 non-violent drug offenders have participated
in treatment, with at least two-thirds completing it since a 1996
voter-approved law exempted them from jail. They also argue that Arizona
has saved at least $6.7 million a year on prison costs.

"Putting people to jail isn't going to solve people's drug addiction," said
Jeffrey A. Singer, a Phoenix surgeon who opposes the measure. "They just
want to use jail as their primary approach. Treatment works, so there is no
reason to change the law."

Overall, 5,385 people on probation participated in substance use treatment
during fiscal year 1998-1999 as a result of the 1996 law, according to an
Arizona Supreme Court report. Only 1,246, though, were required to attend.
The rest had voluntarily opted for treatment instead of facing drug
convictions, according to the report.

It may be difficult to measure the success or failure of mandatory
treatment solely on the report, however. Almost half of the 1,246 were
still in the midst of the program when the report was done, and about 36
percent of those failed to meet all the requirements, the report said.

An updated report should be released later this year.

The treatment is paid in part by money generated from luxury taxes on
liquor sold in the state. Half of the money raised from those taxes pays
for drug treatment and the rest can be used for a parental commission on
drug education and prevention programs.

Nikki Savoy, assistant supervisor at the Treatment Assessment Screening
Center, said those who voluntarily opt for drug education tend to show up
to the sessions at a higher rate than those who are required to do so.

Their incentive, she said, is the threat of being slapped with a drug
conviction.

Comparatively, there is no motivation for those who are required to attend
the drug education sessions to comply, she said.

"The threat of jail time would motivate many to complete the drug
treatment," Savoy said.