PRISONS FOCUS ON FAILED DRUG PROGRAM

It would be difficult to imagine a more scathing indictment of a
government program than the inspector general's report earlier this
year on California's services for prison inmates addicted to alcohol and drugs.

The programs, the report said, were almost a complete failure. There
was no evidence that they were preventing inmates from committing new
crimes after their release from prison. And remarkably, inmates who
went through some of the programs were returning to prison at higher
rates than criminals who got no treatment at all.

The programs were idle much of the time because the prisons in which
they were located were on security lockdown and the counselors could
not get to the inmates. In other cases, overcrowding forced the
intermingling of inmates receiving treatment with the general prison
population, even though they were supposed to be separated. Private
contractors were sometimes being paid for services they were not
providing, and the state had never assessed which contractors were
producing the desired results and which were not.

But even as study after study for more than a decade concluded that
the programs were a mess, the state kept expanding them, replicating
all the problems in new locations that were already evident in the old.

"Overall, the state appears to be receiving almost no value for its
$36 million annual investment in in-prison substance-abuse-treatment
services," the audit concluded. "And because less than 10 percent of
inmates who participate in in-prison substance-abuse programs also
attend aftercare for at least 90 days - which studies show to be
crucial in reducing recidivism - the entire $143 million the state
spends each year for in-prison and aftercare substance abuse
treatment combined appears to be wasted."

That kind of critique would usually generate a defensive response
from the bureaucracy. Excuses. Explanations. Finger-pointing.

But something different happened in this case. The Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation essentially agreed with the inspector
general's conclusions. There was some quibbling about the details,
but nobody tried to claim that the anti-addiction programs were
actually a success.

Since then, the department has hired Kathy Jett, formerly the state's
highly regarded director of drug and alcohol programs, to come run
the prison programs for addicts. Jett was named a deputy director of
the department, elevating her role and giving her more clout to do her job.

Jett told me she was "angry and frustrated" when she read the
inspector general's report because, she said, most of the problems it
cited can be easily fixed if the department focuses on them.

"There was no reason for that to go on for the period of time that it
did," she said.

Jett said that fixing the broken programs will be crucial to the
Schwarzenegger administration's ability to keep its commitment to
overhaul and vastly improve all rehabilitation efforts throughout the
state's 170,000-inmate prison system.

"The substance abuse program is a cornerstone of rehabilitation for
the institutions," Jett said. "I believe strongly that we must get this right."

Most of the work is done by private companies, and under Jett's
direction, the department is re-evaluating all of those contracts.

At least four, and probably several more, will be shut down because
they cannot function in the high-security environments in which they
had been placed. Others may be expanded where the inmates can be
segregated and given the treatment services they need. Ideally, those
getting treatment will sleep, eat, work and play together and will
have little or no contact with other inmates who might still be using
drugs or would be a negative influence on prisoners who want to kick
their habits.

In addition, Jett said, the state intends to hold the contractors who
run the programs accountable for results. Firms will be rehired only
if they can get 75 percent of the inmates they treat into drug
treatment in the community once they leave the prisons, she said.

"These programs in the institutions are only as good as the aftercare
a person gets to," Jett said. "If you only do this in the
institution, it's really just something to keep people busy. But if
you connect it to the outside world, that's where it makes a difference.

"The people that succeed, they carry their treatment to 30, 60, 90
days of aftercare in the community. . . . The people who go to the
community and don't connect with aftercare don't do well, and they
come back into the system."

Inspector General Matthew Cate, whose office issued the report
condemning the alcohol and drug programs, told me he was impressed
with the department's response so far.

Jett, Cate said, was a "good hire," and the department has given her
a position from which she can effectively advocate for the programs.
Recent legislation also created an oversight board to report twice a
year on the progress the department is making.

"Those are all good steps that I think demonstrate there is an
intention to change," Cate said.

It sounds, in other words, as if the state is no longer in denial
about the problem. The department's leaders have committed themselves
to fixing it. Now they just have to deliver.