MAKING REHAB WORK FOR DRUG OFFENDERS

Early results reveal almost a third of California drug offenders sent to
rehab rather than prison under Proposition 36 were rearrested for drugs soon
after treatment.

So goes the life of an addict.

Unfortunately, high recidivism rates were a foreseeable side effect of the
well-intentioned Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act -- which is the
drug world's equivalent of a ``three strikes'' law.

As critics, including these pages, argued before the law passed in 2000:
It's common for addicts to fall off the wagon several times. Therefore, the
law set the threshold too low for giving up on offenders and mandatorily
sentencing them to costly, overcrowded prisons.

UCLA researchers say 31 percent of those sentenced to treatment under
Proposition 36 were arrested again on drug charges within a year of
treatment, compared with 18 percent of addicts rearrested after
participating in other criminal-justice programs.

It's too early to say Proposition 36 is failing. The recent UCLA study was
based on data from the first six months the law was enacted.

But the evidence points toward likely future failings.

The monkey on the back of Proposition 36 is the unshakable reality that
judges need to be able to coerce defendants into treatment by way of brief
jail stays. Proposition 36 forbids that.

Californians humanely altered the way the justice system deals with drug
offenders by mandating treatment over incarceration for those convicted of
first- and second-time drug-possession charges.

But under Proposition 36, if addicts fail treatment three times, they're
likely to be dumped into jail or prison. Game over.

In Santa Clara County, only about 22 percent of drug offenders sentenced to
treatment under Proposition 36 are rearrested within a year of treatment.

That's better than the state's results, primarily because the county's six
drug-court judges who handle the bulk of drug cases closely monitor each
defendant and do what they can to coerce them into -- and keep them in --
appropriate treatment programs. That also allows them to escalate the
intensity of treatment for offenders as needed.

The county has also been willing to spend general funds to support
Proposition 36 treatment -- one of the few counties in the state to do so.
This includes paying for drug testing to monitor offenders -- a cost not
covered by Proposition 36.

Proposition 36 is revolutionary.

But the state's high rate of repeat arrests for addicts in treatment and
Santa Clara County's creative efforts to be more flexible with sentencing
provide arguments for reassessment. Legislators should keep the law's
intention of treatment over jail, but make the threshold more flexible.