DRUG DIVERSION BAKCFIRES JAIL MORE EFFECTIVE THAN PROP.36 REHABILITATION PROGRAM.

Byline: Troy Anderson Staff Writer

Nonviolent drug offenders who were diverted to rehabilitation programs under Proposition 36 had higher rates of rearrest than those who remained in the criminal-justice system, a UCLA study released today says.

Researchers found that offenders who enrolled in treatment programs created by the 2000 ballot measure were 48 percent more likely to be arrested for a drug offense within a year than those who entered treatment through drug courts or as a term of their probation.

In fact, so many severely addicted people were referred to treatment rather than the courts that inpatient residential programs were overwhelmed and many clients were placed instead in outpatient programs.

``Under-treatment appears to be a key ingredient in the recipe for recidivism among drug abusers, particularly for clients with severe drug problems,'' said David Farabee, lead author and research scientist at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute's Integrated Substance Abuse programs.

Deborah Baskin, a professor and director of the School of Criminal Justice and Criminalistics at California State University, Los Angeles, said Proposition 36 failed to adequately match clients with appropriate services.

``As programs battle for scarce funding, they also try to fill their rosters with lower-risk clients,'' Baskin said.

``In this way, programs can keep their numbers up, success rates high, and funding streams full. Therefore, it is not a surprise that severely addicted criminal offenders would be 'shunned' by residential programs when beds can be filled by candidates who pose fewer and less complex problems.''

Superior Court Judge Michael Tynan, who oversees the drug courts in Los Angeles County, said the proposition is flawed because it allows almost anybody convicted of drug-related offenses - except those convicted of serious and violent felonies - to go into treatment instead of prison.

It also gives judges less discretion on the types of sanctions, including jail, for those who test positive for drugs or fail to complete treatment.

``You've had some fairly dangerous people who were coming in and it's my belief - and I think it's shared by other drug court judges - that Proposition 36 is simply too lightweight of a program for those who are severely addicted, afflicted with mental illness or have a long criminal history,'' Tynan said.

The University of California, Los Angeles, research team examined treatment participation and recidivism rates of 688 clients from 43 programs in 13 counties diverted to drug treatment between July 1, 2001, and Dec. 31, 2001. Los Angeles County was not among the those studied.

``Our findings encompass only the early months of Prop. 36,'' Farabee said. ``New programs often need time to become established and to operate as intended. Program outcomes could therefore change.''

Carol Morris-Lowe, planning director for the Los Angeles County Alcohol and Drug Program Administration, said she believes the program has had greater success since its first six months and she is conducting a study on recidivism rates using two years of county data.

``Last year alone, we had more than 10,000 people in treatment because of Proposition 36,'' Morris-Lowe said. ``For many of these clients, this is their first time to receive treatment.

``Addiction is a chronic disease, and with treatment, success is hard to define. We find that the more someone is exposed to treatment, the better chance there is of them becoming a recovering person.''

Morris-Lowe said the UCLA study is one in a series and it's too early to know if the proposition has been a success or failure.

The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act represented a major shift in criminal justice policy when it was passed in November 2000 by 61 percent of voters statewide.

Tynan said he is working with other judges statewide on legislation that would fix flaws in the proposition so that it targets first- and second-time drug offenders in need of treatment. Tynan also hopes those improvements will convince lawmakers to renew the act when it expires in 2006.

``The true first- and second-time offenders usually do pretty well in the programs,'' Tynan said. ``But for the people who have been using drugs for many years, have mental illnesses and long criminal histories, we're just not set up to handle them.

``I hope we can get Proposition 36 to the Legislature to strengthen it and make it more effective. I think we're squandering at least half of the money now.''

Statewide, the act allocates more than $120 million a year for treatment programs, including $30 million annually in the county.

``When you compare treatment to jail, it's obvious we are going to save hundreds of millions of dollars and at the same time provide people with the skills they need to reduce or quit drugs and stop committing crime,'' said Glenn Backes, health policy director at the Drug Policy Alliance in Sacramento.

``Instead, they will be with their families and going to work rather than cramming our jails with nonviolent offenders.''

Troy Anderson, [phone]

troy.anderson(at)dailynews.com