CONNECTICUT PLAN WOULD CUT PRISON TIME FOR SOME DRUG OFFENDERS

In an effort to trim its overcrowded prisons and stop drug-using felons
from committing new crimes, Connecticut's legislature passed a bill this
week that will drastically cut prison time for nonviolent offenders on the
condition that they undergo intensive testing for drug use.

The offenders may be tested as often as three times a week, and every time
their urine test proves positive, they will be detained for two days in a
spartan halfway house that falls just short of being a jail. If they fail
the test repeatedly, they can be sent back to prison.

Although Maryland was the first to pass such a law, Connecticut, with a
single state judicial system instead of many county courts, will likely be
the first to put it in place statewide.

If they succeed, other states may look to follow their lead. Next year, the
federal government will require states to have a plan for regularly testing
prisoners and parolees to qualify for federal funds to build new prisons.

Keeping an inmate behind bars costs about $25,000 a year. But Connecticut
Rep. Robert Farr, a Republican, who proposed the bill, estimated that the
drug-testing program would cost $3,000 per person a year, plus probation
costs.

The bill would make nonviolent prisoners eligible for this type of parole
after serving at least half of a two-to four-year sentence. Typically,
prisoners in Connecticut served at least two-thirds of their sentence
before parole, and, although they could be tested for drugs while on
parole, such tests have been random and infrequent.

The bill sailed through both houses unanimously; the state House of
Representatives passed it on Saturday and the state Senate on Monday night.

Republicans embraced the notion of a "zero-tolerance drug supervision
program," as the bill is titled, while Democrats welcomed the alternative
to long prison terms for addicted offenders.

The bill does not provide any extra money for drug treatment, although
Connecticut is in the advantageous position of having enough treatment
slots for drug abusers who want to quit. The problem had been in
motivating them to do so. But Farr, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary
Committee, said that the threat of repeated short-term confinement provided
an incentive for an addicted criminal to find treatment and take personal
responsibility for his or her rehabilitation.

"In our prison and parole programs, a substantial number of our people are
using drugs," he said. "Now for the first time, we're saying there will be
consequences."

Nationwide, four out of five prisoners behind bars are there because of
some direct or indirect involvement with drug or alcohol abuse, according
to a recent study by the National Center of Addiction and Substance Abuse
at Columbia University. The study, released in January, also found that
half the people who committed a new crime while on parole or probation were
under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

The drug-testing program that Connecticut is planning has no large-scale
precedent, though Washington, D.C., and Lansing, Mich., saw success with
smaller pilot programs. In a trial program last year in Coos County, Ore.,
the number of drug offenders who tested positive dropped from 40 percent in
the first month to 10 percent by the sixth month, according to Mark A.R.
Kleiman, an expert on drug policy who presented the testing concept to some
Connecticut lawmakers late last year.

Kleiman, a professor of policy studies at UCLA, has promoted frequent drug
testing for offenders on probation and parole, who he said account for 60
percent of the cocaine consumed in the United States.

"This program will encourage people to go into treatment if they need it,
will encourage them to stick with it and will encourage them to succeed,"
he said in a telephone interview. "This is the single best shot we have at
reducing hard drug use and shrinking prison populations."

Connecticut's drug offenders who opt for parole or probation would likely
be tested three times a week at first, then less often if they come up
drug-free. Farr said the routine of testing and sanctions could be phased
in by this autumn. He envisioned starting with 10 beds for violators and
expanding gradually to more than 300 slots.

"We have to start small, we have to start slow," he said. "We don't have
any experience running this program."

Connecticut's new state budget includes an initial appropriation of
$420,000 for three more probation officers, drug tests and a halfway
facility to start the program.

Last year, the General Assembly voted down a broader package of legislation
that treated drug abuse as a public health problem rather than a criminal
justice issue.

No such antipathy has been expressed toward the tough-sounding program of
zero-tolerance drug supervision. Rep. Richard D. Tulisano, a Democratic
majority whip who represents Hartford's southern suburbs, said the bill
should be used as a tool to turn drug users into productive citizens.

"We know that addicts fail," he said. "That's got to be built into this.
One failure in two or three years is different from one failure every week."

Even the office of Connecticut's chief public defender, whose indigent
clientele includes many drug offenders, supports the proposed law.
"Anything that is going to offer more treatment and less incarceration we'd
be for" the office's legal counsel, Deborah Sullivan, said.