Conviction for addiction: states are reconsidering whether no-nonsense drug policy should mean prison or treatment.

• Author: Lyons, Donna
• Position: Statistical Data Included

A trend toward treatment is shaking the lock 'em up mentality that has gripped states for decades. More than a dozen passed new laws last year to relax mandatory minimum sentences, to encourage treatment in lieu of prison or to expand drug courts.

"There are two parts to this problem that we are trying to address. First, we want to keep people from using drugs and out of the criminal justice system," says Senator Ryan Deckert of Oregon. "Second, we want to spend our resources more wisely." An act he sponsored last year provides probation for people convicted of possession of a controlled substance or a property offense motivated by dependence on an illegal drug. Local public safety councils are developing plans to integrate treatment into the criminal justice system.

Voter initiatives in Arizona in 1996 and California in 2000 that prescribe treatment for certain categories of drug offenders have instigated the laws in Oregon and elsewhere. "It was definitely an influence," Deckert says, "especially when you look at the numbers coming in from Arizona. It looks like they are saving money."

Indeed, a report on the effects of the Arizona act released late last year said that $6.7 million in prison costs were avoided in FY 1999 when qualified offenders received probation instead of prison time. The figure takes into account money spent supervising and providing substance abuse treatment. Further, the report says, the Drug Treatment and Education Fund, paid for by a tax on beer, wine and liquors is adequately meeting the increased demand for treatment services. And the majority of offenders were completing treatment and passing drug tests.

"The conclusion is simple: Probation with treatment works," the state's director of adult probation, Barbara Broderick, told a House Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy and Human Resources. Those who violate probation may be ordered by the court to participate in intensified drug treatment, community service, house arrest or any other sanction short of incarceration. Some prosecutors, judges and others have been skeptical about diverting offenders without the authority to be able to jail them if they slip up.

THE TREATMENT OPTION

California voter approval of Proposition 36 last year began a large-scale implementation of a similar policy. The measure imposes treatment rather than imprisonment for first-and some second-time drug offenders. Since its passage, California counties have worked to put in place programs to assess the needs of qualifying offenders and to provide various levels of supervision and treatment. The proposition appropriated an initial $60 million and then $120 million annually through 2005-06, to be distributed to the state's 58 counties. County drug program administrators have said that since Prop. 36 went into effect July 1, more clients than expected are hard-core addicts in need of more intensive-and expensive-treatment services than some counties are prepared to provide. Whether that will be a lasting effect or a waning response by users long in need of treatment is not yet known.

"The story so far does seem to be that treatment needs in some counties are more acute than projected, but that the overall numbers of Prop. 36 referrals in several counties are much lower than was expected," says Dan Carson, who handles health services in the California Legislative Analyst's Office, the nonpartisan department providing fiscal and policy information and advice to the California Legislature. Caseload data still being compiled will begin to shed light on numbers and needs of diverted offenders.

Oregon's recent measure also creates a special fund to support local services, by...