STUDY: STATE DRUG PROGRAM FLAWED

The most comprehensive assessment of California's landmark effort to
treat drug users rather than jail them has found that half of
offenders sentenced under the program fail to complete rehab and more
than a quarter never show up for treatment.

The high failure rates have prompted a growing number of critics to
call for jail sanctions for defendants they say take advantage of the
program's lack of penalties.

Voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36 in November 2000. Under
the program, most people convicted of drug possession get three
chances to complete rehab and kick their addictions before a judge
can send them to prison.

To date, the initiative has cost California more than $600 million.
By diverting thousands of nonviolent drug offenders from lockups, the
measure has reduced the burden on prisons and saved the state $2.50
for every $1 spent, according to the University of California, Los
Angeles, study of Proposition 36.

So far, researchers have analyzed each of the nearly 100,000
defendants who went through the program in its first two years.

But the large number of dropouts and no-shows has led judges,
researchers and treatment providers to complain that voters
undoubtedly expected more for their money.

"For the lay voter, I'm sure they thought, 'If you built it they will
come,' and that you would have close to probably a 75 percent or
higher success rate," said Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge
Ana Maria Luna, who chairs a county committee on Proposition 36
issues. "We just haven't seen that anywhere in the state."

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last year demanded that judges be allowed
to jail defendants for short stints if they continue to use drugs or
fail to enroll in treatment.

In response, Proposition 36 supporters sued Schwarzenegger and
temporarily blocked the governor's proposal. Now the governor is
proposing to cut the program's funding.

The stakes are high. For critics, Proposition 36 cannot succeed
because it lacks meaningful sanctions to motivate defendants. For
supporters, jail terms, however short, would signal a shift away from
treating drug use as a health problem and funding cuts would reduce
success rates. They argue that to improve the program, the state
should spend more to ensure treatment beds are immediately available.

"We're at a critical juncture," said Dave Fratello, a Santa
Monica-based campaign consultant and one of Proposition 36's authors.

"With every year of declining results, you'll see reduced funding and
hostile changes to the program. It'll become unrecognizable."

High failure rates are typical among drug treatment programs, but
many judges and law enforcement officials say too few defendants
appear to take Proposition 36 seriously.

Indeed, some offenders admit they view the program as a "free pass."

UCLA researchers, who are evaluating the law as part of a state
contract, have recommended that courts better supervise offenders
with long rap sheets or move them out of the program.

"Some people, quite frankly, don't belong in Prop. 36," Angela
Hawken, a UCLA research economist, told state lawmakers last month at
a budget hearing. "They're going to fail. They're going to keep
failing. We're wasting our money. And we're really ... putting our
community in jeopardy by having them on the streets."

Last year, the Legislature passed a law allowing judges to jail
first-time violators for two days and second-time violators for five
days. The changes also gave judges the ability to jail offenders they
deem incorrigible for up to 30 days or throw them out of the program.

The move angered supporters of Prop. 36, who said the reforms
undermine the intent of the initiative. Prop. 36, they argue, has
helped tens of thousands of people beat addiction. UCLA found that 78
percent of people who completed treatment self-reported being
drug-free one year after their sentence while 59 percent had found jobs.

"Most people in recovery will have a relapse . . . Isn't California
fed up with our prisons being overcrowded?" said Dr. David Pating,
president of the California Society of Addiction Medicine.

[sidebar]

LOCAL RESIDENT THROWN OUT OF PROP. 36 COURT

The Union ran an in-depth story on Nov. 16, 2006, addressing the case
of Ricki Lynn Abel, a repeat drug offender, and her entanglements
with the law and her rocky journey through treatment.

Detractors cite Abel's case as an example of Prop. 36's shortcomings.

In February, a Nevada County judge ruled that Abel was denied entry
into the county's Adult Drug Court. Abel was thrown out of Prop. 36
court in November 2006 following her arrest on four drug-related charges.