Drug Diversion Law in Arizona Paying Dividends

A controversial Arizona law that diverts nonviolent drug offenders from prison and into one of the nation’s most sweeping drug treatment programs has registered remarkable early successes, according to a report scheduled to be released today by the Arizona Supreme Court.

More than three-quarters of the 2,622 offenders who completed the program tested negative for drugs, the report said. Keeping the offenders in drug treatment cost half as much as it would have to imprison them, saving Arizona taxpayers $2.6 million.

The report was immediately attacked, however, by officials in the prosecutor’s office of Arizona’s largest county, who said the report used misleading statistics to create a “false impression that doesn’t approach reality.”

The drug treatment programs were mandated by Proposition 200, a voter initiative approved by 65% of the Arizona electorate in 1996.

“This was a citizen initiative in a pretty conservative state,” said Barbara Broderick, the report’s author. “But most of us realize that substance abuse is a public health issue that is devastating our community, and that prison should be used for people who are violent or totally recalcitrant.”

The report did not address the most controversial element of Proposition 200: a provision that allowed physicians to dispense marijuana, heroin and other drugs as prescriptions. That part of the law was overturned--temporarily--by the Arizona Legislature.

Still, supporters of the law saw in the report a vindication of a liberal-minded approach to the drug problem, a strategy that runs counter to the “zero tolerance” policies advocated by many local leaders.

“Opponents of Proposition 200 said this was a ‘pro-drug’ initiative,” Arizona Appellate Court Judge Rudy Gerber, a Proposition 200 supporter, said in a statement. “As it turns out, [the law] is doing more to reduce crime than any other state program, and saving taxpayer dollars at the same time.”

Offenders assigned to the Arizona program receive treatment according to an HMO-style triage system, Broderick said. Some are merely required to attend education classes one to three times each week, while others were enrolled in intensive outpatient programs that involved daily sessions with therapists.

In addition, 77% of those placed on probation under the program made at least one payment to cover the cost of their treatment.

Because the drug treatment program has been in effect for just a year, the study was unable to say whether it will reduce recidivism. Other studies, however, show that those receiving such treatment are almost four times less likely to commit crimes.

Barnett Lothstein, a special assistant county attorney in Maricopa County, did not dispute the effectiveness of drug treatment, but did question the premise of the Supreme Court study. Maricopa County--home of 60% of Arizona’s population--already had a diversion program for first-time drug offenders.

A few years ago, when Proposition 200 was being debated by the voters, the prosecutor’s office did a survey of county jails to see how many first-time drug offenders were locked up.

“There were none, not a person, because they were all offered diversion,” he said. The Supreme Court study said 550 potential inmates had been kept out of jail. Such claims, he said, were illusory.