ARIZONA SENTENCES OFFENDERS TO REHAB

First and second drug offenses result in treatment instead of prison.

With nonviolent offenders growing at a faster rate than violent ones, Iowa
has joined legions of states looking for cheaper, more effective ways to
deal with drug offenders.

One of the most talked-about models stems from Arizona's 2-year-old
Proposition 200, which requires that all the state's first- and second-time
drug offenders be sentenced to treatment rather than prison.

The state Supreme Court's first evaluation of the program in April concluded
that three-fourths of participants stayed clean after a year.

The state, meanwhile, saved $2.5 million. The program costs about $30 a day
for each person, while prison runs about $50 a day, a court spokesman said.

"I think we're still a little ways away from looking the taxpayer in the eye
and saying, "Yes this is absolutely working the way it should," "" said John
MacDonald, a spokesman for Arizona's high court. "But so far, we like what
we see."

State Sen. Andy McKean, R-Anamosa, who is co-chairman of a commission
studying the effects of Iowa's sentencing policies, said the program is "the
kind of thing we'd certainly want to give consideration."

McKean said Gov. Tom Vilsack and others have alerted him to Arizona's
program. The commission expects to make recommendations to the Legislature
next year.

Arizona officials say the expanded treatment program is paid for through an
alcohol luxury tax, which means waiting lists are not a problem.

There's enough money for necessary support services, such as after-care.

Arizona state leaders included money for additional training, added
sanctions for offenders who fail to stay in the program, increased
supervision for those in community-based programs and required smaller
caseloads for probation workers.

The latter has proved particularly beneficial, MacDonald said. A recent
state audit concluded that enhanced probation coupled with drug treatment
worked much better than without treatment. Recidivism went down, restitution
went up and offenders were less likely to commit more crimes, he said.

While the initiative was controversial for some of its other provisions,
MacDonald said, it passed largely because of its treatment provisions.

"The public spoke fairly loudly when it came to trying to some new
approaches to the war on drugs," he said.