Pubdate: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 Source: New York Times (NY) Copyright: 2001 The New York Times Company Contact: 229 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036 Fax: (212) 556-3622 Website: http://www.nytimes.com/ Forum: http://forums.nytimes.com/comment/ Author: Fox Butterfield Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm (Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act) CALIFORNIA LACKS RESOURCES FOR LAW ON DRUG OFFENDERS, OFFICIALS SAY LONG BEACH, Calif. — Sgt. Walt Turley has been on the Long Beach police force for 26 years, long enough to know that many of the drug addicts he arrests wind up back on the streets, and long enough to know that prison sentences alone will never solve the nation's drug problem. But Sergeant Turley is worried that Proposition 36, a new law that sentences drug offenders to treatment rather than prison, is also in danger of failing when it goes into effect on July 1. "There isn't enough money for good treatment, and there isn't enough coercion for judges to keep the hammer over addicts without the threat of jail," Sergeant Turley said. It is a concern shared by the police, judges, prosecutors, probation officers and officials of drug treatment agencies in Long Beach and around California as the state rushes to find ways to carry out the new law, the most sweeping change in its criminal justice system in decades and one that was approved overwhelmingly in November. It is not that these authorities disagree with the goal of Proposition 36, which is to provide drug treatment instead of prison for first- and second-time offenders who are not charged with other crimes. Overwhelmingly, they agree, treatment can work. But they worry that the law was hastily written, without sufficient money or authority for treatment programs, and they see a cascading number of unintended consequences. Will drug addicts refuse to plead guilty, for example, and take their chances on a trial, because the worst that can happen to them is to be sentenced to treatment? That could cause havoc in the state's courts, where more than 95 percent of drug offenders plead guilty, saving the courts significant time and money. Moreover, who will make sure the addicts go from the courtrooms to the new treatment centers, and how will they be tested to make sure they are drug free, since there is no money in the new law to address either of these problems? "Frankly, I think this could work, if it were better funded," said Lael Rubin, special assistant to the Los Angeles County District Attorney and a member of a task force appointed by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors to find ways to carry out the new law. "We believe in drug treatment, we want it to work," Ms. Rubin said. "But this is our dilemma. We're afraid if this fails, people will want to go back to the lock-them-up days." Even a number of treatment centers, for whom the new law could prove a bonanza, are skeptical. "The language of Proposition 36 did not define the assessment criteria to determine what kind of treatment an addict needs, or where they will be placed, which are critical issues," said Elizabeth Stanley Salazar, regional director of Phoenix House, a national nonprofit drug treatment agency. "The most significant indicator of success, we know from years of experience, is time in treatment, but the backers of Proposition 36 seem to believe that most people only need outpatient services, or literacy training, when we think they may be hard-core addicts who need long-term residential care, which is much more expensive." Already, Ms. Rubin and other Los Angeles officials have been to Sacramento to lobby the Legislature for more money to carry out the new law. Unfortunately, the Legislature is focused on only one thing — California's power crisis. California's prison population exploded to 161,291 at the end of 2000 from roughly 30,000 in 1980, with one-third of those inmates serving time for a drug-related crime, more per capita than in any other state. In the mid-1990's, as California began to spend more on its prisons than on its state college and university system, voters began to question appropriations for prison construction. Proposition 36 was financed by three businessmen: George Soros, the New York investment billionaire; Peter Lewis, chief executive officer of Progressive Insurance in Cleveland; and John Sperling, the founder and chief executive officer of the University of Phoenix, a network of private educational institutions. Their main argument was that the nation's drug war had failed. And the initiative in California came at a time when voters and politicians in other states, too, were expressing disenchantment with the war on drugs. Last month, Gov. George E. Pataki of New York proposed softening the harsh Rockefeller-era drug laws, allowing shorter prison terms for nonviolent drug offenses and giving judges the discretion to offer treatment instead of incarceration. Voters in California may also have been influenced by the success of the state's specialized drug courts. Los Angeles County alone has 12 drug courts, in which drug addicts who waive their rights and agree to be sentenced by the courts receive treatment instead of prison time, unless they repeatedly fail or drop out. Michael Tynan, the supervising judge of drug courts for Los Angeles County, said the addicts he supervises had a success rate of 75 percent. But it is not an easy program. Most of the defendants who agree to enter the program, Judge Tynan said, are hard-core addicts and have already been in prison. At first he puts them in intensive treatment for 12 to 15 hours a day in the Los Angeles jail. After that, they are put on probation for up to five years, with drug tests four times a week, and are required to stay in treatment centers. He can send them back to jail if they fail a test. "Drug court judges who have experience dealing with addicts believe you need sanctions, the hammer to put these folks back in jail," Judge Tynan said. "Their major problem is not criminality, but drug addiction." That is why, Judge Tynan said, he is skeptical about how well Proposition 36 will work. After a defendant is sentenced to treatment, a judge will have no more authority over the person. "The lack of a hammer is a real problem," he said. The supporters of Proposition 36 provided $120 million a year for treatment statewide, estimating that there would be 36,000 addicts who would be eligible. Addicts arrested on other charges — for burglary, robbery, drug sales or possession of a gun — would not be eligible. But Maria Luna, a former drug court judge who is now chairman of the Los Angeles County task force to carry out Proposition 36, estimates that Los Angeles alone will have 24,000 defendants eligible for treatment. A year of outpatient services for a drug addict comes to $4,000, Judge Luna said, or $96 million alone for the 24,000 new offenders in Los Angeles. Many offenders need more costly inpatient treatment. In addition, Proposition 36 prohibits using the new money for drug testing, which at $8 a test, four times a week, could cost Los Angeles another $10 million a year. The new law also does not provide money for additional probation officers, a serious flaw, since probation officers in Los Angeles often have case loads of 1,000 offenders. There are also questions about where the new treatment services will come from. It can take two years to overcome neighborhood opposition to a new drug treatment center, said Ms. Salazar of Phoenix House. Sergeant Turley in Long Beach worries about the practical effect of the new law on police officers and citizens. "From the point of view of a street cop," he said, "humping and grinding in his black and white, what happens when he makes a drug arrest, then has to do two hours of paperwork, then has to go to court, only to see the knucklehead right back out of the street because he skipped out on his treatment?" - --- MAP posted-by: GD