Pubdate: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 Source: Arizona Daily Star (AZ) Contact: http://www.azstarnet.com/ Author: Howard Fischer (Capitol Media Services) DRUG INITIATIVE'S SAVINGS CITED, BUT MAY NOT EXIST Phoenix--Voter-approved legislation to keep first- and second-time drug offenders out of prison has saved Arizona taxpayers $2.5 million, a report by the staff of the Arizona Supreme Court says. But the report, released yesterday, assumes that every one of the 551 people sentenced under the terms of Proposition 200 would otherwise have gone to prison. In fact, Mary Judge Ryan, the chief deputy Pima County attorney, said the reverse is true. She said most people who are convicted for the first time of possession of drugs for personal use would wind up back on the streets. If even half of those convicted would not have wound up in prison, the entire claimed net gain would be wiped out. Barbara Broderick, director of the Supreme Court's adult services division, also acknowledged the study does not address whether people placed into treatment programs instead of being sent to prison are more likely to stay clean. Proponents of the 1996 initiative said the key to stopping people from using and abusing drugs is treatment and not incarceration. The 1996 measure specified that people convicted of the personal possession of drugs cannot be sent to prison for a first or second offense. Instead they would be eligible for probation and required during that time to take part in a drug treatment or education program. That didn't necessarily mean they were free: The Arizona Supreme Court ruled last year that judges may impose time in a county jail -- up to a year -- as a condition of probation. The same measure allows medical doctors to prescribe otherwise illegal drugs for people suffering from serious or terminal illnesses. That provision has been stymied by federal Drug Enforcement Administration threats to revoke the prescription-writing privileges of any doctor who agrees to such treatment. The 551 people placed on probation under the terms of the initiative saved the state more than $5 million in prison costs, according to the report. That is based on the presumption that the average offender would have wound up in prison for six months. After the cost of probation was deducted, that still left the state with a net saving in excess of $2.5 million. "That's silly," responded Barnett Lotstein, a special assistant Maricopa County attorney. "No judge will send a first-time offender to prison," he said, and few second-time offenders will get such a sentence. As to the long-term effects of the change in law, Broderick said that is yet to be determined. She said the study covered only the first full year after the change in law, too early to measure recidivism rates. Broderick said future studies will look at whether those who went through the treatment programs are likely to get arrested again. Broderick said there is some evidence that treatment works, at least in the short term. She said 61 percent of those placed into probation programs completed them successfully. And more than three-quarters of those tested for drugs while on probation tested negative. Lotstein said that's looking at the situation in reverse. "What about the other 39 percent?" he asked of the completion rate. "Did they just walk away from the program?" The Supreme Court report said 22.5 percent of those in treatment programs tested positive for drugs during the year of the study. Lotstein said those figures are not impressive, although he added that he believes treatment works. He noted that his own agency offered diversion programs before the 1996 initiative was approved. Under that program, first-time offenders would have their convictions erased if they completed treatment programs. He said that program had only an 8 percent recidivism rate after two years versus 21 percent for those who did not get treatment. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D