DRUG TREATMENT NEW YORK-STYLE

CALIFORNIA and New York have revolutionary plans to send drug addicts
to treatment instead of jail. In California, addicts arrested for
nonviolent drug offenses, some 36,000 a year, will be directed to
treatment under Proposition 36's new rules. And New York's chief
judge has ordered that state's nonviolent addicts, 10,000 a year, to
rehab. But the devil is in the details, and New York's programs are
more likely to succeed.

California's Legislature and drug rehabilitation agencies, now
deciding how to spend $120 million a year in Prop. 36 treatment
funds, would do well to look east for guidance.

New York's new system is modeled on its Drug Treatment Courts that
reduced offenders' rearrest rates from 35 to 14 percent. But in
California, Drug Courts with similar successes are being cut out by
Prop. 36.

Campaign manager Dave Fratello argues that money to Drug Courts would
"go to judges, staff, administrative costs and monitoring expenses,
with little left to pay for actual treatment services. Proposition 36
makes it a priority to invest in treatment programs, rather than Drug
Courts."

But in implementing Prop. 36, the state Legislature should expand the
Drug Courts, as New York has decided to do.

New York's Drug Treatment Courts provide "supervision and monitoring
of addicted offenders by judges and others throughout the treatment
process, continued drug testing and strict systems of sanctions and
rewards to motivate defendants to succeed in treatment." California's
Prop. 36 provides for no more specific monitoring than: "The court
shall require participation in and completion of an appropriate drug
treatment program." Instead of regular visits with a judge, as New
York's system dictates, a drug offender in a rehab program in
California will be monitored only by quarterly reports to a probation
officer.

While New York will utilize frequent drug testing to track addicts in
rehab, Prop. 36 foolishly prohibits its funds from being used for
drug testing. Drug offenders who relapse will fall through the cracks
until deep into their addictions.

Recognizing that rehabilitation involves lifestyle changes as well as
stopping drug abuse, the New York system coordinates "education, job
training, basic health care or housing assistance. Drug Court case
managers and judges will track the progress being made in these
areas." Prop. 36 states only that the court may impose such
requirements as vocational and literacy training.

Prop. 36 also limits rehab to one year; New York provides for more
than one year if needed. In California, a drug offender can graduate
from rehab when there is "reasonable cause to believe that the
defendant will not abuse controlled substances . . ." In New York,
the addict "must satisfy other requirements likely to encourage a
drug-free lifestyle, such as having a job or obtaining a G.E.D. or
vocational degree."

It will not take major legislation for California to mirror New
York's system of working closely with drug offenders in court-ordered
rehabilitation. The state's Drug Courts, 109 in all, are already
following that model, with outstanding success rates.

Prop. 36 provides $120 million a year to beef up our drug
rehabilitation system. The majority of those funds should go to
expanding our Drug Courts, which have proven track records in guiding
offenders through rehab and keeping them from further arrests. Rather
than reinvent the wheel, we should put our money where we know it
works.

Lonny Shavelson is a Berkeley emergency room physician and author.
His most recent book, based on following addicts in San Francisco as
they go through rehab, is "Hooked: Our Nations' Misguided Drug
Treatment Strategy and How to Make it Work."