ADDICTS NEED TREATMENT, NOT PRISON TIME

Louis B. Garippo, Board chairman TASC Inc

The Chicago Tribune recently published an article about Proposition 36, a
treatment diversion program for drug offenders in California ("Jury out on
treatment program; Novel anti-drug strategy may be a budget victim," News,
July 2).

The article identifies California and Arizona as the first states "to take
a comprehensive approach in making treatment available to all eligible drug
offenders in their states."

Thanks to our public policymakers and leaders in our state and local
justice systems, however, Illinois has had a system for linking criminal
justice with community treatment services for 25 years.

Under Illinois law, many non-violent, addicted offenders entering the
criminal justice system are eligible for diversion into treatment by way of
TASC (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities), a non- profit entity
with representatives who serve every criminal courthouse in the state. TASC
conducts assessments of offenders' clinical needs and refers them to
appropriate treatment in the community. Regular communication with all of
the parties involved ensures offender accountability. TASC also makes
referrals to other social services, such as educational and vocational
training, mental health treatment and child welfare services.

Through this process, thousands of individuals every year receive treatment
instead of prison time on their way to healthy, productive citizenship.
Combined with the leverage of criminal sanctions for non- compliance,
treatment is a proven alternative for reducing drug use and recidivism.

Yet while we have the infrastructure in place to address this issue, two
concerns remain. First is a sentencing structure that continues to
incarcerate low-level offenders at an overwhelming rate. Drug offenders
currently make up 40 percent of new admissions to prison, in part because
of sentencing laws that mandate prison for crimes involving relatively
small amounts of drugs and that are particularly harsh for repeat
offenders. California's Proposition 36 leaves no room for judicial
discretion, which is essential in balancing the "carrot" of treatment with
the "stick" of criminal justice sanctions and accountability.

There is no need to burden taxpayers or our prison system with mandatory
incarceration for offenders who would be better served with treatment. Not
only is treatment more cost-effective than incarceration, but it also
presents much better prospects for long- term abstinence from drug use and
criminal behavior.

My second concern echoes that expressed in the article--the severe shortage
of adequate treatment resources. Simply stated, there are not enough
treatment slots available for the sheer volume of non-violent offenders
with substance abuse problems. National estimates suggest that 65 percent
of inmates would benefit from some form of substance- abuse treatment. In
Illinois, that equates to 25,000 people in prison alone, not to mention
tens of thousands more on probation and parole.

As state budgets tighten and human services get cut, we lose the
opportunity to restore these individuals to self-sufficiency and
participation in their communities. It should be no surprise that half of
all inmates released will return to prison within three years. Their
communities simply don't have the resources to support their re- entry.

I encourage public policymakers in Illinois to pursue a reframing of our
sentencing laws for drug crimes, as well as a commitment to providing
adequate treatment resources. For Illinois to continue to lead the nation
in designing and implementing cost-effective alternatives to incarceration,
we must also be leaders in providing treatment to those who need it.

To do otherwise sets up our public systems--and those who seek
recovery--for failure.