PUNISHMENT OR TREATMENT?

Initiative Would Shift Focus, Pouring More Funds Into Prevention

SACRAMENTO -- Three drug-possession convictions earned Elon Burns his first
term in state prison. A fourth drug offense sent him to Donovan Prison on a
parole violation.

Drugs were easy to find in prison. Rehabilitation wasn't. His heroin use
even escalated at Donovan.

"It taught me how to use needles. It made me into a worse addict," said
Burns, who lives in Spring Valley.

Burns, 29, is one of thousands of addicts who cycle in and out of jail and
prison for drug-possession offenses in California -- a state that throws
more drug offenders in prison per capita than any in the nation.

Most of them get no rehabilitation.

Inside and outside prison, California has a shortage of drug-treatment
programs for addicted criminals, especially residential programs.

An initiative on the November ballot, Proposition 36, would increase money
for drug treatment and probation by $120 million per year for five years.
It also would reroute first-and second-time drug offenders from jail or
prison into treatment.

Law-enforcement officials and many judges oppose the measure, saying it
would undermine drug laws.

They argue the increased spending on treatment might be wasted because the
initiative won't allow judges to threaten addicts with jail time.

"Treatment without accountability doesn't work, that's why we started drug
courts," said Santa Clara County Judge Stephen Manley, president of the
California Association of Drug Court Professionals, which opposes the measure.

But even opponents of the measure, which was modeled on an initiative
passed in Arizona four years ago, support spending more money in California
on treatment of criminal addicts.

"It's terrible," said San Diego County Superior Court Judge Timothy Tower,
who has presided over drug courts. "There's not close to enough treatment
spaces."

The state's treatment shortage frustrates drug court judges who want to
expand their successful programs. It also costs taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars in prison expenses and dooms many addicts like Burns to
a revolving door between prison and parole.

Burns' mother, Gretchen Burns Bergman, said she believes her son would have
had a better chance at conquering his addiction if he had received
treatment during his first brush with the law 10 years ago.

Instead, he got three months of work furlough.

"I kept saying: If only they would take the power they have and use that to
mandate treatment," said Bergman, who has formed a group called Parents for
Addiction Treatment and Healing. "When people have this disease, they don't
know that they need treatment."

Worth the expense

Numerous studies have concluded treatment is worth the extra initial
expense because it reduces recidivism, thus cutting costs in the long run.

One key study, commissioned by former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson and
conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, concluded that the state
saves $7 for every $1 invested in treatment, mainly because of crime reduction.

"If you don't address drug and alcohol abuse, they're just going to come
back," said Al Medina, administrator of alcohol and drug programs for San
Diego County.

California treatment advocates contend state lawmakers don't need to wait
to see whether the drug-diversion initiative passes. They can allocate the
money now, the advocates say.

In the last two years, lawmakers have increased the budget for drug courts
and drug treatment in prisons.

But state Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-San Jose, who has been working to
expand rehabilitation programs for years, said lawmakers don't have the
courage to go further.

"It's stupid," he said. "They want to be tough on crime. But they fear that
supporting treatment is going to make them seem soft."

Currently, 19,000 of the state's 160,000 prisoners are locked up for drug
crimes, according to the state Department of Corrections.

Many drug users return again and again to jail and prison. Drugs are
considered to be the leading cause of the state's high recidivism rate
among prisoners, which reached 67 percent in 1999, according to state
documents.

State budget increases in rehabilitation now provide for 8,000 treatment
slots in prison.

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office estimated in a report three
years ago that treating an additional 10,000 felons for substance abuse
would reduce recidivism enough to save the state $80 million a year and
$210 million in one-time costs by making it unnecessary to build a new prison.

An estimated 81 percent, or about 130,000, of inmates in California's state
prisons have a drug or alcohol addiction, according to a study by the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.

In some ways, that makes the California prison system the nation's largest
detoxification center.

'Criminals first'

Jeff Thompson, lobbyist for the prison guards union, supports more
treatment for criminals. But he cautions that a large increase in money may
not dramatically reduce crime or incarceration expenses.

"Some prisoners are criminals first, who just happen to be addicts," he said.

Those inmates have no interest in ending their addictions, he said.

Some prisoners complain they never got a chance.

Stephen Elias of El Centro said during several stints in prison for robbery
and stolen property convictions he never received treatment for his heroin
addiction.

"The one thing I find ironic," Elias wrote in a letter from prison last
year to a Union-Tribune reporter, "is that every time I'd go to prison it
was because of my drug addiction, but not once did I ever receive any
treatment for the root problems of my criminality."

Elias, who is serving 25 years to life for a third strike of stealing a
printer, said he couldn't find treatment while not in prison, either.

Outside prison, there is a 5,000-person waiting list for publicly funded
residential treatment programs throughout the state, said Susan Nisenbaum,
deputy director of the state's Department of Alcohol and Drug
Rehabilitation. She said many on the waiting list are addicts with criminal
convictions.

The department projects it needs $63 million more in state funding to
eliminate the list. But department officials contend the list significantly
underestimates the need for publicly funded treatment, which it says would
cost an additional $330 million a year to provide.

Nisenbaum cautions that proposed treatment centers frequently face local
opposition among neighborhood groups.

"Even a check for $63 million wouldn't entirely solve the problem," she said.

Drug court limits

Urban counties such as San Diego and Santa Clara have provided local money
for increased treatment. But they also suffer shortages, county officials say.

This hinders the effectiveness of drug courts, which are an approach to
helping criminals kick their habits before they're sent to state prison.

In these programs, judges, using a mixture of toughness and compassion,
order counseling, treatment and unusual assignments, such as writing
papers. They also threaten jail time.

At first, many prosecutors were reluctant to embrace drug courts, deriding
them as "hug-a-thug" programs because they abandon the traditional
adversarial court system in favor of a team approach.

But now, said Lori Koster, the deputy district attorney who coordinates the
drug courts in San Diego County, prosecutors as well as defense attorneys
sing their praises.

In San Diego County, 450 people have graduated from adult drug courts since
their inception two years ago. Only 15 percent were arrested again within
six months.

"We've got nearly 500 people who didn't function, who are now functioning.
They're going to work, taking care of their children and earning a salary,"
she said.

Yet the shortage of treatment programs forces the San Diego drug courts to
limit enrollment and sometimes close their doors.

"We just turn people away when we're closed," she said. "We don't even
screen them for addiction."

Officials report similar successes and problems with drug courts throughout
California. Such courts operate in 40 of the state's 58 counties.

"Drug courts are working well, but we need more resources," said Santa
Clara's Judge Manley. "There is just not funding for testing and inadequate
funding for treatment."

A history of addiction

Elon Burns' convictions came before drug courts began. At his mother's home
in Spring Valley, Burns recounted his history of addiction. During the
interview he was fidgety. He could barely sit still on the couch in the
living room, and frequently went outside to smoke.

Later, he explained the reason: He knew he had tested positive for heroin.
His visit that afternoon to a parole agent could land him back in state
prison for up to a year.

Burns, who started drinking and smoking marijuana when he was 10,
frequently got into trouble with drugs and alcohol. But his problem
escalated about 10 years ago when he tried what would become his nightmare:
heroin.

When asked about the drug, Burns suddenly focused.

"It's got such a hold -- different from any other drug. It grabs you and
gets in your soul," he said. "It's the purest form of evil on earth because
it just seduces you with how good it feels."

Burns said he continued using heroin during his first two prison terms, one
at Jamestown in the Sierra foothills, and the other at Donovan.

"There's all kinds of dope at Donovan," he said.

Prisons do their best to keep drugs out, but they still are smuggled in,
mostly through the mail and family visits, said Stephen Green, spokesman
for the state prison system.

Burns, during his third stint in prison, this one for another parole
violation, finally entered the Amity rehabilitation program at Donovan.

The pioneering program has a record of turning around addicts, but Burns'
10-year heroin addiction couldn't be conquered during his three-month stay.
He and his mother said they believe the program amounted to too little, too
late.

Still, he said he believes prison is the wrong place for an addict.

"I knew I had a problem, but I didn't know what to do about it," he said.
"I was being warehoused."