Drug probation centers lacking, study shows
By Melody Hanatani
June 1, 2003 9:00 p.m.
California drug probation centers need to strengthen their
disciplinary tactics, according to a study recently released by
UCLA.
The study released by the California Policy Research Center
stated that about a third of probationers failed to show for drug
testing or have tested positive for illicit drug use.
“Drug dealers depend on drug buyers, and especially on
frequent drug buyers,” said Mark A.R. Kleiman, lead author of
the study and a professor of policy studies for UCLA’s School
of Public Policy.
Kleiman said a large proportion of the customers for the
state’s illegal drug market can be found in
California’s 600,000 probationers.
A probationer is a convicted offender ““ of substance abuse
in this case ““ whose sentence has been suspended for good
behavior, allowing the offender freedom under supervision of a
probation officer.
The study, which was released last week, was conducted over a
one-year period prior to the implementation of Proposition 36 in
July 2001.
Proposition 36, also known as the Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act, gives first- and second-time drug offenders the
chance to receive substance abuse treatment rather than face
incarceration.
The purpose of the study was to examine probation departments in
various locations with differing reputations prior to Proposition
36. The study focused on probation departments in Los Angeles, San
Diego and Santa Cruz counties and found similar results in all
three.
The study concluded the probation centers under examination had
below average programs to abstain their clients from continued drug
use.
But UCPD Detective Del Rosario said this task isn’t as
easy as it sounds.
“Probation departments have a lot of cases,” Del
Rosario said. “They are county employees and understaffed, so
I can see how something like this could happen.”
Del Rosario handles drug cases on campus and in surrounding
areas, and is responsible for referring those cases to the district
or city attorney, who then hands the cases to the courts where
probation decisions are involved.
The report said probation centers need to tighten monitoring as
well as implement swift sanctions, which include a higher frequency
of drug testing.
The report also recommends probationers be tested twice a week
to reduce the rate of drug use and relapse.
According to the study, when testing once a week, there’s
only a 35 percent chance of detecting any drug use, compared to an
80 percent chance when testing twice a week.
In the three counties studied, probationers were found to be
tested only once a month, which has less than a one in 10 chance of
detecting any drug use.
The study argues the weak infrastructure in California probation
departments is the reason for the high rate of noncompliance on
part of the probationers.
According to the study, ignoring failures to appear for drug
testing and positive drug tests results in a loss of credibility
for the system and more probation violations.
More consistent sanctions could be the answer to handling the
situation. The study mentions three specific penalties ““ day
reporting, halfway-back houses, and community service.
With day reporting, for a certain number of days, probationers
are required to report to a probation facility for the duration of
a work day while sleeping in their home at night.
A halfway-back house, the most severe of the three sanctions, is
a form of incarceration holding probationers for a shorter amount
of time than a regular prison sentence, and requiring less
security.
The report says these methods may be effective ways of reminding
probationers of the consequences that may follow upon breaking
probation rules.
Richard Shumsky, chief probation officer of Los Angeles
County’s Probation Department, said when Proposition 36 was
on the ballot, many argued against it, saying drug offenders
can’t change their old habits.
“Some people see drug use as an illness, whereas others
see it as a first step toward crime,” Shumsky said.
According to www.prop36.org, Proposition 36, which annually
allocates $120 million for treatment services, will end up saving
taxpayers $1.5 billion because the costs of incarceration are far
greater than the costs of substance abuse treatment.
Kleiman said the estimated cost of probation is much less for
taxpayers than incarceration.
“We spend about $60 a day to keep someone in prison. We
spend about $2 a day to keep someone on probation,” Kleiman
said. “You get what you pay for.”
However the actual cost is a different story he said.
“The actual social cost of having someone still using
cocaine and still committing crimes may well be higher than having
that person in prison,” Kleiman said.
“There are people in prison who could be maintained safely
in the community if they had adequate supervision. But
today’s probation system doesn’t seem to be capable of
doing that job well,” he said, adding that the findings of
his study were quite disturbing.
Others, like Del Rosario, said the departments are not
completely at fault.
“I don’t feel as though the system is bad,”
Del Rosario said. “It’s just a matter of the department
being understaffed. There is only so much they could do.”
