DRUG COURTS HELP CURB ABUSE AMONG OFFENDERS WASHINGTON

Programs that force non-violent drug abusers into rehabilitation instead of
jail help them kick the habit while saving taxpayers money, a bipartisan
group of health experts said today.

The Physician Leadership on National Drug Policy released findings from a
study on so-called drug courts -- programs allowing non-violent offenders to
undergo treatment rather than serve time -- that shows reduced drug abuse
and rearrest rates among enrolled defendants.

Coerced rehabilitation offers a much-needed alternative to punishment alone,
concluded the group of prominent physicians and public health leaders from
the Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations.

The research comes as the White House's drug policy office seeks to triple
the number of drug courts, which now total about 300 nationwide, by the year
2000. With $30 million set aside for drug court grants in 1998, the Office
of National Drug Control Policy believes it can cut the prison population by
a quarter of a million in the next five years through continued expansion of
the program.

``The data is persuasive,'' says Dr. David Lewis, director of the Center for
Alcohol and Addiction Studies at Brown University and project director for
the physicians' group. ``You can get a lot out of treatment, and it's quite
cost effective.''

Based on the discretion of law enforcement officials or judges, offenders
who commit non-violent crimes are eligible for hearings at a designated drug
court rather than a regular court. A drug court judge then orders the
defendant to enter a rehabilitation program, and the court monitors for
compliance through routine drug testing. Defendants who fail a drug test or
to show up for treatment can end up serving real time.

The drug court study, conducted by the National Center on Addiction and
Substance Abuse at Columbia University, was one of five reports released
today on rehabilitation and the criminal justice system.

The study found that drug courts succeeded in reducing drug use among those
in the program. One survey found 10 percent of urine tests for those
enrolled in drug courts turned up positive compared with 31 percent for
defendants just under supervised probation.

The study also found criminal behavior substantially lower during treatment:
only 4 percent of participants in the Delaware adult drug court program, for
example, were rearrested. The Jackson County, Mo., drug courts found a 4
percent rearrest rate compared with 13 percent for those not in the program.

The first drug court began operating in Dade County, Fla., in 1989, where an
early champion was then-chief prosecutor Janet Reno. Her vocal support as
attorney general and the 1994 Violent Crime Act, which calls for federal
support for drug courts, has aided the program's growth. Another 125 drug
courts are being planned.

According to the Justice Department, more than 70 percent of the 100,000
offenders assigned to drug courts are still enrolled or have successfully
completed treatment. Drug use among participants is reduced to under 10
percent.

Scientists and some policy-makers also believe rehabilitation will alleviate
overcrowding in prisons.

James McDonough, chief strategist at the national drug control office, says
the goal is to break ``the cycle of addiction, crime, prison,'' while
reducing costs. While it costs about $25,000 to incarcerate someone,
treatment runs about $2000-$3000 a year.

The drug court approach could be a hard sell to a ``get tough on crime''
public that has backed harsher sentences and to congressional Republicans
who have pushed for spending on drug enforcement rather than on treatment.

But Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, who sponsored this year's Drug Demand
Reduction Act, stands behind the program which can help thwart the
``revolving door'' phenomena, said his spokesman, Brian Besanceney.

``It's a more effective use of taxpayer dollars,'' Besanceney said.

Checked-by: Rolf Ernst