DRUG DIVERSION LAW IN ARIZONA PAYING DIVIDENDS

Treatment: Early results indicate low recidivism, reduced cost to taxpayers
compared with jailing offenders. But critics say statistics are misleading.

A controversial Arizona law that diverts nonviolent drug offenders from
prison and into one of the nation's most sweeping drug treatment programs
has registered remarkable early successes, according to a report scheduled
to be released today by the Arizona Supreme Court.

More than threequarters of the 2,622 offenders who completed the program
tested negative for drugs, the report said. Keeping the offenders in drug
treatment cost half as much as it would have to imprison them, saving
Arizona taxpayers $2.6 million.

The report was immediately attacked, however, by officials in the
prosecutor's office of Arizona's largest county, who said the report used
misleading statistics to create a "false impression that doesn't approach
reality." The drug treatment programs were mandated by Proposition 200, a
voter initiative approved by 65% of the Arizona electorate in 1996.

"This was a citizen initiative in a pretty conservative state," said
Barbara Broderick, the report's author. "But most of us realize that
substance abuse is a public health issue that is devastating our community,
and that prison should be used for people who are violent or totally
recalcitrant."

The report did not address the most controversial element of Proposition
200: a provision that allowed physicians to dispense marijuana, heroin and
other drugs as prescriptions. That part of the law was overturned
temporarily by the Arizona Legislature.

Still, supporters of the law saw in the report a vindication of a liberal
minded approach to the drug problem, a strategy that runs counter to the
"zero tolerance" policies advocated by many local leaders.

"Opponents of Proposition 200 said this was a 'prodrug' initiative,"
Arizona Appellate Court Judge Rudy Gerber, a Proposition 200 supporter,
said in a statement. "As it turns out, [the law] is doing more to reduce
crime than any other state program, and saving taxpayer dollars at the same
time."

Offenders assigned to the Arizona program receive treatment according to an
HMO style triage system, Broderick said. Some are merely required to attend
education classes one to three times each week, while others were enrolled
in intensive outpatient programs that involved daily sessions with therapists.

In addition, 77% of those placed on probation under the program made at
least one payment to cover the cost of their treatment.

Because the drug treatment program has been in effect for just a year, the
study was unable to say whether it will reduce recidivism. Other studies,
however, show that those receiving such treatment are almost four times
less likely to commit crimes.

Barnett Lothstein, a special assistant county attorney in Maricopa County,
did not dispute the effectiveness of drug treatment, but did question the
premise of the Supreme Court study. Maricopa Countyhome of 60% of Arizona's
population already had a diversion program for first time drug offenders.

A few years ago, when Proposition 200 was being debated by the voters, the
prosecutor's office did a survey of county jails to see how many firsttime
drug offenders were locked up.

"There were none, not a person, because they were all offered diversion,"
he said. The Supreme Court study said 550 potential inmates had been kept
out of jail. Such claims, he said, were illusory.