| |
Drug Policy Working Group
Drug Strategies in the West
Preliminary Draft
May 25, 2000
Table of Contents
Preface
Overview
Methamphetamine
Drug Trends
Best Practices and Proven
Alternatives
Conclusions
Appendix – Promising Initiatives (Descriptions of Promising
Programs in the West)
Thoughts for the Year Ahead
Drug Policy Working Group
(Please note: This document does not contain charts or graphs.
Those are available in the pdf format.)
Preface
During the WGA Winter Breakfast Meeting in Washington, DC on February 29, 2000,
Neil Goldschmidt, former Governor of Oregon and Chairman of Drug Strategies, and Mathea
Falco, President of Drug Strategies, joined the governors for a roundtable discussion of
state drug policies. The conversation was highly animated and exceeded its allotted time
on the agenda. At the end of the discussion, the governors unanimously supported WGA
engaging the drug policy issue, including bringing ideas for implementation to them and
their staffs at this year’s annual meeting.
Purpose
The purpose for this ‘white paper’ is to provide the governors
with background information regarding both drug use and innovative drug programs in the
West in preparation for a plenary session, "Effective Drug Policies: Reducing
Demand," that will be held on June 13 at the WGA Annual Meeting in Hawaii. The
‘white paper’ was developed by the WGA Drug Policy Working Group, which was
formed in late March 2000. The working group currently includes representatives from 13
WGA states and from Drug Strategies. It is chaired by Kathy Ruffalo from the office of
Governor Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho.
The working group held a meeting on April 28-29 in Denver to begin
developing the report. It also has relied on e-mail, conference calls, and the WGA secure
Web site to develop this ‘white paper.’
Governors should consider this report as a ‘snapshot’ of drug
use and drug programs in the West. The information in this ‘white paper’ is not
intended to be all-inclusive or to fully characterize drug use and innovative drug
programs in the region. Not all WGA member states participated in the working group.
Furthermore, much of the data that we did receive is not complete or in a standardized
format, making it difficult to compare statistics from different states. It should also be
noted that not all of the programs under the ‘Best Practices' and ‘Promising
Initiatives’ sections have been evaluated. Therefore, we do not know their true level
of effectiveness. As the working group further engages these issues, we anticipate
updating and revising this report.
The focus of the white paper is on treatment and prevention programs,
but it is not the intent to take away from the importance of enforcement, interdiction,
and corrections programs. Western states need comprehensive strategies to address drug and
alcohol abuse with increased emphasis on treatment and prevention.
Overview
In order to begin characterizing drug and alcohol
abuse and drug programs in the West, the WGA Drug Policy Working Group developed a survey
and submitted it to WGA member states to complete. The responses of the twelve Western
states that participated ranged from very detailed to quite brief. Despite the lack of
consistently comparable information, certain common themes emerged that characterize the
scope of drug abuse problems in the region as well as state initiatives to reduce these
problems.
All states report that their drug-related spending has increased
substantially in recent years and continues to increase.
The twelve states reported that their anti-drug budgets continue to
grow. However, all states noted that determining precisely how much of the state budget is
allocated to this area is a central challenge. Responsibility for prevention, education,
treatment, law enforcement and corrections is spread among many state agencies which often
do not earmark the funds spent addressing drug abuse. However, most states can make an
educated estimate of these amounts. Nonetheless, from state to state, these estimates may
be based on very different assumptions which can undermine the accuracy of regional
comparisons. Most states did not include the large infusion of federal funding which comes
into their states and which is sometimes matched or placed in partnership with state and
local funds.
More than half of state anti-drug budgets are spent on criminal
justice and incarceration costs both for adults and juveniles with serious drug problems.
Drug crime is driving rapid increases in state incarceration rates and
corrections costs throughout the region. The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics recently
reported that during the past decade, eight western states were among the top ten states
nationwide with the largest increases in corrections populations. While these increases
may be due in large part to the fast-growing increases in the overall population in the
Western states, many of these offenders have been convicted of drug law violations and/or
have serious drug problems closely related to their offenses (for example, robbery,
burglary, assault). State spending on drug prevention, education and treatment programs
accounts for a much smaller portion of total anti-drug expenditures: reporting states
estimated that spending in this area ranges from 20 to 30 percent. One must keep in mind
that a portion of criminal justice and incarceration costs certainly includes and
contributes to prevention, education, and treatment programs.
Alcohol and other drug abuse treatment is available for only a
small fraction of those who need it.
States vary widely in their capacity to provide accurate assessments of
treatment needs, both within the criminal justice system and in the general population.
All the states report that they need better estimates of how many people need treatment,
so that resources can be more effectively used. In the eight western states in which data
were reported (AZ, ID, NV, ND, SD, HI, TX, WA), treatment is available to only a fraction
of those that need it. Percentages range from a low of 6.6% to a high of 30.1%. Among the
eight states combined, 1,224,655 persons need treatment. Publicly funded treatment is
available in those states to only 173,273, or to approximately 14% for those in need.
Treatment is scarce, although intensive outpatient programs are
relatively inexpensive compared to taxpayer costs incurred by drug abuse. A major study in
California in 1992 found that every dollar spent on treatment saves $7 in reduced costs to
the public, primarily because of reductions in crime and increases in productivity.
Federal funds for treatment, which flow through to the states in block grants, represent
only 25% of the total Federal drug budget (almost $20 billion in FY 2001). Expanding
treatment availability would require substantial increases in, or relocation of, Federal
and state funding. One must keep in mind that a portion of criminal justice and
incarceration costs certainly includes and contributes to prevention, education, and
treatment programs.
States are expanding drug courts as a cost-effective alternative
to incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders.
Drug courts, which place nonviolent drug offenders into court-supervised
treatment instead of jail, are gaining wide acceptance. There are currently 168 drug
courts in the Western states and 104 additional drug courts are being planned. Some states
have adapted the original drug court model (for adult drug offenders) into family drug
courts and juvenile drug courts. Although these courts have not yet been extensively
evaluated, national studies have found that drug courts reduce recidivism by half to
two-thirds among those who "graduate," at a fraction of the cost for
incarceration. Several Western states report similar findings in their initial evaluations
of drug courts.
All states in the region have drug education and prevention
programs in a substantial portion of their schools; however, very little information is
available as to effectiveness.
Many different programs are currently used in schools across the Western
region; however, most of them are not based on research regarding the most effective
approaches, and they are not generally well funded, especially in rural areas. (This is
also true across the country.) The U.S. Department of Education now requires that school
drug and violence prevention programs be research based in order to obtain Federal funding
under the Safe and Drug Free Communities program. States recognize the urgent need to
develop better information on which programs schools have adopted and to move towards
programs of proven effectiveness.
Methamphetamine
Methamphetamine is a very powerful stimulant sometimes
called "Speed", "Crank", "Crystal", or "Crystal
Meth." It is generally found in powder or crystalline form and can be taken orally,
snorted, or injected. It is a synthetic psychostimulant that produces intoxication,
dependence, and psychosis. Methamphetamine has mood-altering effects, behavioral effects
such as increased activity and decreased appetite, and a high lasting 8 to 24 hours.
Although there is an initial general sense of well-being, methamphetamine use has been
associated with both long- and short-term problems such as brain damage, cognitive
impairment and memory loss, stroke, anorexia, hyperthermia, hepatitis, HIV transmission,
heightened anxiety, increased aggression, and paranoia.
Historically, methamphetamine use has been concentrated primarily in the
West and Southwest. A number of indicators–including methamphetamine laboratory
seizure data and arrest data from the U.S. Department of Justice–clearly show that
methamphetamine use is spreading throughout the United States. Of particular concern is
both the increasing use among populations not previously known to use this drug, and the
emerging use in cities and rural settings previously thought to be largely unaffected by
illicit drugs. Meth use is particularly problematic in the rural areas, many of which lack
the infrastructures necessary to deal with a major drug problem.
Where is Meth coming from?
The various outlaw biker gangs historically controlled the
methamphetamine market. That situation has changed over the last 8 - 10 years as the
Mexican Drug Organizations have taken over much of the market. According to the January
2000 Federal Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force Report, the drug is manufactured and
distributed by Mexican sources using established drug trafficking routes. The precursor
chemicals necessary to manufacture methamphetamine are controlled in the United States but
that is not the case in Mexico. Consequently, many large scale clandestine methamphetamine
labs are in operation in Mexico. They are able to smuggle large shipments across the
border in commercial vehicles, as is evident by the large scale highway interdiction
seizures which are frequently made across the western United States.
Another source for Methamphetamine is the increasing number of
clandestine methamphetamine labs operating in the United States. According to the U.S.
Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) seizures of clandestine
laboratories increased from 218 in 1993 to 1623 in 1998. There were an additional 4,136
local and state seizures nationwide in 1998. Not only has there been a steady rise in meth
labs, there is growing spread of labs from the Southwest, across the West, and now into
the East.
Most early labs utilized an ether process. These were frequently
discovered due to the odor of the ether. This method was followed by the red phosphorus
method, which is still used by some "cooks." The most popular methods, by far,
are the various ephedrine and Psudoephedrine cook down methods. It is easy to get on the
Internet, search the word ‘methamphetamine,’ and find several hundred recipes
for methamphetamine.
Most significant for western states is that meth labs appear to be
increasing in the West, and continue to comprise a major portion of the domestically
produced drug. 65 of the 71 "super labs" (10 pounds of capacity or more) seized
by DEA in 1998 were in the West; 57 of those were in California. These super labs
accounted for 78% of production capacity seized.
Meth Lab Problems
Meth Lab Problems Meth Lab Problems Meth Lab Problems
TThese clandestine methamphetamine labs pose many problems,
including safety issues and environmental concerns. These lab sites are considered
hazardous waste sites by EPA and require expensive safety equipment to dismantle them.
There are also various OSHA requirements that govern safety requirements for the law
enforcement officers responding to these sites. Improper response to these clan labs can
result in serious injury or death.
The cost of cleaning up these hazardous clandestine meth lab sites can
range from $3,000 to $5,000 for a relatively small operation to as much as $50,000 to
$100,000 for a large site. There is usually five pounds of waste generated for every one
pound of product. This waste is often dumped in backyards, rural areas, in rivers, or
fields. The impact on groundwater supplies is obvious. If state agencies work in
conjunction with the Federal DEA, they have access to COPS Grant "Super Fund"
money to pay for the clean-up. If not, they are normally responsible for the clean-up
costs themselves.
Prevention and Treatment Programs
Given a limited time schedule, the WGA Drug Policy Working Group
was not able to gather such data as the number of users of meth, the number of users
needing treatment, and the current capacity for meth treatment. As the working group
continues to investigate meth use, we will endeavor to get these numbers in order to
characterize the ‘human toll’ that this drug is causing.
The Federal Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force Report states that
effective prevention programs should be comprehensive, e.g. involving the individual,
families, schools, the media, law enforcement officials, health care providers, other
professionals who directly serve youths, and community agencies and organizations. The
program components should be well integrated in theme and content so they reinforce one
another.
Treatment of methamphetamine addicts presents many problems. The drug is
extremely powerful and requires long term treatment for any success. Most successful
programs require a six to twelve month residential treatment followed by extensive
out-patient monitoring. Along with the powerful addiction of the drug are the associated
medical problems. These include severe weight loss, cardiac problems, respiratory
problems, and tooth and gum separation. Recent studies have shown a close similarity
between extended meth use and Alzheimer’s disease. The projected long term medical
costs for these meth addicts is staggering.
Unfortunately, there is no end in sight for the methamphetamine problem.
Huge shipments of methamphetamine continue to be seized after being smuggled into the
United States from Mexico. Increasing numbers of clandestine meth labs are seized each
year in the western United States. Ongoing studies related to methamphetamine continue to
paint a bleak picture for the future of methamphetamine addicts. The future costs to our
medical, social service, criminal justice, and corrections systems is frightening.
Methamphetamine is a problem that demands our attention.
The January 2000 Federal Methamphetamine Interagency Task Force Report
offers a number of recommendations in the areas of prevention and education, treatment,
law enforcement, and research. This report, conducted over the past two years by a task
force of federal and non-federal experts from the fields of law enforcement, prevention,
education, and treatment, could serve as a useful guide to the western states wanting to
develop programs to address the meth problem.
Drug
Trends
Trends in Drug Usage
In 1998, more than six percent of Americans used illicit drugs,
compared to over seven percent of the Western region’s residents. The total number of
illicit users nationwide is 13.6 million, four million of whom are drug addicts. These
numbers remained relatively stable from 1992 to1998.
Among illicit drugs, marijuana is by far the "drug of choice."
However, methamphetamine accounts for most of the growth is arrests, caseloads, and
incarceration, and is the fastest growing part of the drug abuse problem.
Illicit drug use is highly correlated with educational status but not
racial groups. It is a major contributor to deaths due to overdose, suicide, homicide, and
HIV-AIDS. As the perceived risk of illicit drug use decreases, drug use increases and vice
versa.
WGA states are also major transhipment states where illegal drugs
initially enter the country, are stored temporarily, and then are moved to population
centers in other parts of the nation.
Trends in Drugs and the Criminal Justice System
During the last two decades, more and more Americans are being
incarcerated, a large percentage of whom committed drug-related crimes.
The FBI Uniform Crime Reports reported a 358 percent increase in drug
arrests between 1973 and 1996 going from 329,000 in 1973 to 1.5 million in 1996. This
increase has greatly impacted prison populations, which grew on average by 64,000 inmates
each year between 1990-1997. In 1997, there were a total of 1.8 million inmates: 99,000 in
federal prisons; 1.1 million in state prisons; and 567,000 in local jails. The total
national prison population is nearing 2 million this year.
Drugs, alcohol and crime go together. Half of all inmates are
poly-substance abusers. Further, drug law violators constitute 25 percent of all adult
inmates. Another 3 million are on parole or probation.
Trends in Budgets
With the increase in drug crimes and in enforcement, there has
been a corresponding increase in government spending. The National Association of State
Budget Officers reported that the 1998 state spending for corrections totaled more than
$30.2 billion, a 4.7 percent increase over the previous year. Between 1992 and 1998, state
corrections spending increased an average of 8.2 percent. The Federal Bureau of Prisons
budget increased from $220 million in 1986 to $3.19 billion in 1997.
The federal drug budget has grown from $1.5 billion in 1981 to $18.1 in
1999, with two-thirds of the budget going for supply side activities (see graph above). To
date, the federal government has spent over $160 billion while state and local governments
have spent an additional $320 billion to combat illicit drugs.
In addition to the large amounts of money spent directly on drugs, there
is a high cost for drug related health-care costs. Nationally, $7.6 billion is spent in
health-care costs for drug abuse. Taxpayers pay about two-thirds of these costs through
medicare; medicaid; and local, state and federal agency budgets.
Best
Practices and Proven Alternatives
The Drug Policy Working Group surveyed western states to find
out what they are doing to address the demand for alcohol and illicit drugs. This section
is based on our findings from the 12 States that provided information, which included
Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Washington, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Hawaii, Texas and Idaho. For more detailed information about specific programs,
the Appendix includes brief descriptions of a number of ‘Promising Initiatives’
in the West.
Treatment Services
Treatment Services
Non-Correctional - Best Practices
The Western States are making a concerted effort to address the needs of
non-Correctional populations. An effective strategy of community based treatment is an
evolving process, but there are key components that need to be considered in the
development of a system of care. A number of these components are: Screening and
Assessment centers that allow for the accurate diagnosis of chemical abuse and dependency
issues and related co-morbid conditions; a system of treatment services that is gender,
culturally and age specific; a treatment system that includes structured outpatient
treatment services, day treatment services, residential treatment services, long term
residential programming and a minimum of 1 year of ongoing continued care services. Also
critical is a treatment process that addresses the unique needs of pregnant substance
abusing women, methamphetamine users, and inhalant abusing youth. Access to services needs
to be based on standardized placement criteria and each component needs to be evaluated to
assess effectiveness, but structural changes based on the outcome of the evaluation
component.
Correctional
Many of the Western States have identified the needs of the inmates
within the adult and juvenile correctional facilities and have made efforts to provide
needed services to the incarcerated populations.
As with the non-Correctional based treatment system, the first step in a
correctional model needs to begin with an accurate screening and assessment process. Once
an individual is assessed, a determination can be made as to what level of impairment
exists and then placement can occur. Types of programming that are proven to be promising
include treatment services based on a community based structured outpatient treatment
model which provides services while the individual is housed within their primary living
area, or a therapeutic community approach which separates inmates with similar chemical
dependency diagnosis and structured treatment for up to 2 years is provided. Both models
have proven to be effective, but a key component of all programs is the ongoing care the
inmate receives when he returns to the community. Critical areas of therapeutic support
include access to supportive alcohol and drug focused half-house and structured continued
care services for up to one year. Therapists working with this population need specialized
training to effectively deal with inmate issues.
All program components must be evaluated to determine effectiveness.
Prevention
Some of the Western States report that 100% of the schools have
prevention curriculums in their school system with 90% being based on Research Prevention
models. To conduct effective prevention services, it is critical to have research based
prevention programming in place from elementary through middle school, with booster
sessions from middle school through high school. It is also critical to involve the
community in which the school is located in the prevention efforts. This includes
developing local coalitions (including students) to assess alcohol, drug and violence
issues and develop a community plan to address the issues. It is also critical to have in
place student assistance models that can allow for a student to be referred to needed
services once a problem is identified. The final step is to develop a system of secondary
and early intervention services on a statewide basis that can effectively address a
youth's chemical use/abuse issues as soon as they are identified.
With regard to all of the programming for prevention efforts and dollars going into our
schools, we must keep kids from using substances, alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc. Current
statistics indicate that drug use, teen pregnancy, violence occurs most frequently drug
the high risk hours after school from 2:30 P.M.-6:30 P.M. More out of school programs and
a change of the school day hours needs to be encouraged to keep our youth safe and to
"prevent" first use. National evaluations indicate this has more of an effect on
our kids than many of the drug programs.
It is also critical to evaluate prevention efforts and adjust programming based on data
received.
Drug Courts
An emerging program in many of the western states that has been effective at
reducing crime and drug abuse are adult, juvenile and family drug courts. Nevada reported
that the recidivism rate among the 1,955 people enrolled in its two adult courts and two
family and juvenile courts was approximately 11% compared to the general criminal
recidivism rate of 65%. Not all states have drug courts operating, and most reported that
the demand for drug courts was far greater than the supply.
Conclusions
In developing this white paper, the WGA Drug Policy Working Group came to a
number of conclusions that are outlined in this section. These recommendations are based
on the information that is included in the preceding sections, and also on the ‘Best
Practices and Proven Alternatives’ section which includes a number of ‘Promising
Initiatives’ and appears as an item in the Appendix.
- Drug and alcohol abuse continue to have tremendous detrimental impacts on the health and
well-being of individuals, families and communities across the West.
- States, rather than the federal government, are in a better position to understand the
substance abuse problem confronting them. The federal government needs to work closely
with the states to provide the resources necessary to meet the individual and unique needs
of each state rather than approaching the issue in a one size fits all manner.
- Citizens must be held accountable for their actions. However, alternatives to
incarceration and the increased availability of treatment are important.
- The federal government and the states need comprehensive drug and alcohol abuse
strategies, including prevention, intervention, education, treatment, aftercare and
enforcement.
- Innovative demand side programs have emerged that have been very effective at keeping
people off of drugs in the first place and from returning to prison after release. States
can build upon these successes by exchanging information on innovative programs dealing
with the prevention, treatment, aftercare, and law enforcement aspects of the substance
abuse problem. Innovative programs should be explored, replicated where appropriate, and
scientifically studied to verify their effectiveness.
- The far-reaching destructive impact of methamphetamine manufacturing cannot be ignored.
The public safety, public health and environmental menace from methamphetamine labs is
immediate. It is imperative that adequate funding for the cleanup of methamphetamine labs
be maintained.
- Affected states should create and maintain partnerships with federal, state and local
law enforcement and public safety agencies to reach effective solutions for the continued
funding of clandestine methamphetamine lab cleanup.
- The WGA governors should seek to initiate a critical analysis of current practices and
public policies to implement effective strategies to deal with drug use and its effects
upon our states. The Western Governors' Association should convene a Western Drug Policy
Summit to heighten public awareness of the region's substance abuse problems and further
promote effective solutions.
Appendix
Following are descriptions of some promising initiatives that are being
undertaken in some of the Western states.
South Dakota
Comprehensive Substance Abuse Treatment is available for adults and juveniles
incarcerated within the Department of Corrections. In fiscal year 1999, 597 adults and 237
juveniles received treatment services. Abstinent rates for adults one year post-treatment
is 54.2% and for adolescents one year post treatment is 37.9% (these rates are after the
inmate is discharged from the institution).
The State has established a community based diversion program for adolescents arrested
for alcohol or drug related offenses. There has been established three levels of care - 8
hour primary prevention program, 30 hour intensive prevention program, and a structured
outpatient treatment model - in all Circuit Courts in the State. Juveniles are placed in a
particular level of care based on a standardized screening tool. Data shows that only 9%
of juveniles served require multiple levels of services for their alcohol/drug issues.
Nevada
A program started by Sheriff Richard Kirkland has been tremendously successful,
even receiving national recognition. The program is a High Step Boot Camp at the jail
which targets the chronic alcoholics who cannot stop committing misdemeanors and therefore
keep the revolving door to the jail continually spinning. The courts sentence the habitual
misdemeanant to the six month maximum and the only benefits they receive come from their
volunteering for the boot camp. It is a very structured program where they finish their
education, learn basic discipline, are dried out and receive counseling all in the first
phase. Then they enroll into a trade program (carpenter, cook, etc) taught at the jail by
the community college. The last phase of their incarceration is spent working during the
day at their chosen trade while spending the nights at the jail. Most of the money they
earn is returned to the program, with the rest of it being placed into their account which
is given to them upon release. A lot of the items they make, such as patio furniture and
storage sheds, are sold to the public with the money again being divided between
reimbursing the program and the prisoner. After they are released, there is a follow up
program, which is the primary reason this boot camp program is successful where others
have failed. The recidivism rate for these people has dropped tremendously and they have
made the conversion from an anchor to productive citizens.
Hawaii
Two successful inmate in-facility therapeutic residential treatment programs
developed by the department of public safety are KASH BOX (male only) and Ho’omana
(Female only) both programs located on the island of Oahu. Both the KASH BOX and
Ho’omana programs are long term (9 to 15 months) rehabilitation program for those
individuals with a history of substance abuse / addiction and motivated for treatment.
Both view chemical dependency as a disease of the body, mind, and spirit. The disease of
addiction results in severe alienation from self, society, and family. To deal effectively
with this disease, the program will focus on the total change in lifestyle that will allow
the individual to remain chemical free and reduce recidivism. The KASH BOX and
Ho’omana programs have been very successful in transitioning the inmate from prison
back to the community.
Arizona
Juvenile Drug Courts, Family Courts and Diversion Programs – The
Arizona Parents Commission on Drug Education and Prevention is supporting an initiative to
enhance juvenile drug courts, family courts and diversion programs by providing funds for
a parent component. Seven juvenile courts in Arizona’s counties have been selected to
participate in the program. Research indicates that parental involvement is a major
protective factor in preventing and decreasing child substance use. These juvenile courts
are requiring that parents actively participate in the substance abuse treatment of their
children. Services to parents include family assessments, parenting classes, individual
and family therapy, in-home skills training, substance abuse education and parent support
groups. The Parents Commission is also funding an outcome evaluation that will measure
drug use by juveniles participating in these programs and their subsequent encounters with
the juvenile justice system.
ACTION Initiative – The ACTION Communities Initiative (Arizona’s
Compact to Improve Our Neighborhoods) is Governor Jane Dee Hull’s new approach to
comprehensive crime prevention and neighborhood revitalization. This
"first-in-the-nation" program is a unique partnership between the
Governor’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, and Arizona State University, who will
bundle funds from all levels of government to provide a holistic attack on crime and
neighborhood decay. Funds for drug treatment, education, job training, housing, police
officers, economic development, infrastructure, after-school programs, etc. will be placed
in one package of services for communities to bid on in an effort to truly turn around
entire neighborhoods. The communities will design their own strategies and we will provide
the needed resources. The first phase of the project has just gotten underway.
Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council – In 1990, the Legislature created the
Arizona Drug and Gang Policy Council to address, in a coordinated manner, the State’s
education, prevention, and treatment activities dealing with substance abuse and gangs. It
is designed to ensure that state agencies work together in implementing a comprehensive
strategy. The Council is chaired by the Governor and consists of 16 members, including the
Attorney General, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Administrative Director of
the Courts, state agency directors from Health Services, Public Safety, Economic Security,
Adult Corrections and Juvenile Corrections, and representatives from local government,
community colleges, universities, business and community groups. The Council and a Working
Group composed of Council member representatives are currently working on ways to assess
the effectiveness of publicly funded drug and gang prevention and treatment programs and
direct funds to programs that have been shown to improve outcomes. Several tools have been
or are currently being developed to provide the necessary information for these efforts:
- A statewide scorecard with 19 indicators of drug and gang problems in Arizona
- A program inventory that identifies all prevention and treatment programs funding by
Council member agencies;
- A geographic information system that will locate the problems tracked by the scorecard
and follow federal, state, and local dollars to their specific delivery areas
- Collections of treatment and prevention programs that have been evaluated to improve
outcomes.
Character Education – In October,1999, Governor Jane Dee Hull spearheaded a
statewide voluntary Character Education initiative. Her vision is to offer character
education training to any educator or youth leader who wishes to take it and implement it
into their curriculum. The curriculum is based on the nonpartisan and nonreligious values
of trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring and citizenship, It is a
collaboration between public and private sectors, with the executive-appointed Character
Education Commission working closely with Arizona educators, nonprofit youth organizations
and businesses. In addition, to ensure the long-term sustainability of the training, we
founded the Arizona Character Education Foundation, a 501(c) 3 organization. The goals of
the Character Education Commission and the Character Education Foundation are identical
and share five liaison members. Thus far, a waiting list exists of interested nonprofit
youth organizations and schools to receive the training.
Meth and Kids Initiative – The Arizona Department of Public Safety
estimates that 150 children are rescued from clandestine meth labs every year. The Meth
and Kids Initiative is a statewide collaborative effort by the Arizona Attorney
General’s Office, Governor’s Division of Drug Policy, Child Protective Services,
health care providers and law enforcement agencies. The intent of the initiative is to
protect children forced to live in clandestine meth labs by removing them from the home at
the time of lab seizure, providing prompt and thorough treatment in response to an assumed
toxic chemical exposure, and ensuring long-term safety by involving Child Protective
Services.
Texas
Lone Star Leaders – Governor Bush's Lone Star Leaders initiative
focuses on five key resources that experts say help youth make right choices and avoid
high-risk behaviors: (i) parental/family connectedness; (ii) mentoring; (iii) abstinence;
(iv) character education; and (v) after-school programs. Although this initiative isn't
specifically targeted at drug abuse, it is designed to help young people make right
choices, including whether or not to use drugs.
Prison Treatment Programs – In 1991, the Texas legislature created the
In-Prison Therapeutic Community (IPTC) and the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment (SAFP)
treatment programs for offenders whose substance abuse was linked to their crimes. Under
Texas law, a judge may sentence a defendant to the SAFP program as a condition of
probation. The program is an intensive nine to twelve month drug treatment program (locked
up) that is followed by three months in a community residential facility and then twelve
months of outpatient treatment.
The IPTC program is nine to twelve months of intensive substance abuse treatment. The
Board of Pardons and Paroles must vote to place qualified offenders in the program and
successful graduates are then paroled. If the inmate fails to complete the program, then
he stays in prison. The SAFP and IPTC are considered high quality treatment programs.
"Turn Around Texas" – Governor Bush has been a strong supporter of
"Turn Around Texas" - a community-based drug fighting initiative that encourages
neighborhoods to mobilize to combat drugs through community involvement, street marches,
and vigils. After implementing the program, Taylor, Texas (the first Texas "Turn
Around" community) reduced its overall crime rate by 32% and violent crime by 80%.
Seventeen Texas cities have a "Turn Around Texas" program. Six cities received
some start-up funds from the Governor’s Criminal Justice Division while the remaining
cities have funded their own programs.
New Mexico
Harm Reduction Act (Needle Exchange) – The "Harm Reduction
Act" became effective on June 20, 1997. The purpose of the act is to create a program
where intravenous drug user can exchange a used hypodermic syringe, needle or other object
used to inject controlled substances or controlled substance analogs into the human body
for a sterile hypodermic syringe and needle. The purpose of this needle exchange is to
prevent the transmission of blood-borne diseases such as HIV/AIDS, and hepatitis B and C,
and also to encourage intravenous drug users to seek substance abuse treatment and ensure
that participants receive individual counseling and education to decrease the risk of
transmission of blood-borne diseases. In addition, the needle
exchange program serves as a pathway to providing other social and health services to the
addicted individual who would otherwise not receive any assistance.
Supporters of needle exchange programs include the National Academy of Sciences, the
American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors
and the World Bank. A 1994 study of New York City intravenous drug users concluded that
"regular participation in these syringe exchange programs would reduce the risk of
HIV infection by approximately half."
Idaho
Attendance Court – As part of a comprehensive approach to substance
abuse prevention, the Idaho juvenile justice system is developing an exciting program
called "Attendance Court." Begun by Magistrate Judge John Varin, attendance
court began as an effort to work with elementary school children who are consistently
truant with numerous unexcused absences. Frequent truancy will force a child to fall
farther behind in their studies and they may become more frustrated at school and at home.
Judge Varin, working with his district elementary schools, receives a list of
elementary school students with a high number of unexcused absences. The judge will then
bring his entire court process to the school. Every aspect of the proceedings are official
– including the bailiff, the court reporter, a social worker and school staff.
Parents or guardians of the children are compelled to attend the court proceedings. Idaho
Code requires the parent or guardian of a child over the age of 7 to have their children
attend school. If a child is an habitual truant, the court has jurisdiction to hold the
parents accountable.
The purpose of attendance court is not to punish the young children who are truant. In
fact, the exact opposite is true. Once a child and his/her family is before the court, the
judge is able to determine the root cause for the child’s failure to attend class.
Often times the problems are related to family difficulties. The solution to attendance
problems may require connecting families to social services. In other cases, it just takes
a stern message from the judge. The goal of the court is to keep children from starting on
the wrong path at an early age. By working with the children and the families at the front
end of the juvenile justice system, the state of Idaho may keep a child from having to go
before the judge at a later date for a more serious offense.
Combined Agency Methamphetamine Program – As part of the Governor
Kempthorne’s get tough policy on methamphetamine, the State of Idaho recently created
a Combined Agency Methamphetamine Program, or CAMP, designed to establish a cooperative
approach among local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies fighting the spread of
methamphetamine production and trafficking.
This multi-agency effort includes the Idaho State Police, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, local chiefs of police, county sheriffs, probation/parole officers,
prosecutors, judges and social workers. Working together as team to share information and
resources, CAMP is an excellent example of how agencies from different levels of
government can work together with a common goal -- to interdict and apprehend
methamphetamine cooks and traffickers.
Broad based therapeutic community approach – As part of the Idaho
correctional system, the state has begun a comprehensive program for offender treatment
using a broad-based therapeutic community approach. In addition to providing substance
abuse treatment, the state has developed a cutting-edge program to combine this treatment
with cognitive thinking programs as well. By enhancing substance abuse treatment with
programs designed to address the criminal thinking of an offender as well, the therapeutic
community is better able to work with the offender on the root cause of their addiction
and subsequent crimes.
Faith and Justice Network – The state of Idaho has begun a Faith and
Justice Network to strengthen the relationships between the faith community and the entire
juvenile justice system.
The goal of the program is to enhance the communication and collaboration between the
faith community and the juvenile justice system. By working with one another as a team, it
is possible to develop programs to keep juveniles out of the juvenile justice system in
the first place and provide community-based assistance to the juveniles who exit the
system.
North Dakota
Governor’s Policy Advisory Board of Drugs and Alcohol –
Governor Schafer created by executive order in 1999 a policy advisory board of 18 members
to provide coordination of all drug and alcohol funding programs in the State. The Board
is to implement effective policies and provide oversight to implement a comprehensive
strategy that includes education, prevention, treatment, drug demand reduction, detection,
interdiction, law enforcement, and incarceration to reduce criminal activities associated
with the abuse of drugs in alcohol in North Dakota. Prior to the creation of the Board,
programs were often uncoordinated, and without a consistent comprehensive strategy. Thus
far the Board has promulgated a consistent reporting mechanism to inventory programs and
funding. It has initiated a survey to determine funding cycles of the funding programs,
and will provide to the Governor its recommendations to implement a comprehensive strategy
regarding drug and alcohol abuse.
North Dakota Revocation Center – In January, 1999 North Dakota implemented
a new program to divert probationers and other low-risk offenders from being returned to
prison for a subsequent violation. The Revocation Center is used to take such offenders,
who are often chemically dependent and place them in an intense treatment and cognitive
restructuring program that teaches them how to reduce or avoid chances of future
violations and the use of drugs. The premise of the program is that many offenders would
benefit from a brief return to custody and intense treatment, rather than return for the
remainder of their prison term if they were returned to Court for a probation violation.
Although the program is still quite new, it has produced a recidivism rate of 18% in its 1st
year, and has resulted in cost savings and saving prison bed space.
Colorado
The State Incentive Grant (Colorado Kids Ignore Drugs) has school/community
partnerships throughout Colorado. The year-round program targets youth ages 12-17. The
youth are not only recipients of program service, they are active members of the statewide
advisory team and also provide leadership in their local programs.
Colorado has a project to reduce college binge drinking. The state, in partnership with
the University of Denver and Colorado College, tests the social norms model. We have found
that more students binge drink than was expected. The social norms model has shown to be
one of the most effective models in reducing college binge drinking. We have a
representative from Coors Brewery participating in this initiative.
Colorado partners in a 7-state consortium project funded through the National Institute
of Drug Abuse. This project has given Colorado its first statewide school survey sample
data and its first 10-year trend social indicators data for prevention program planning.
These two components are allowing Colorado's prevention programs at both the state and
local level to plan their funding and their programs more effectively based on risk and
protective factor data.
Thoughts for the Year Ahead
Are we winning or losing? Do we know?
Have we held all existing policies/programs accountable?
Is a new drug policy "bottom line" of how we measure success emerging, and a
new set of drug strategies aimed at that bottom line?
Alcohol and tobacco still impact states much more than all illicit drugs.
Can state criminal justice systems and budgets continue to support today’s primary
drug policies for the decade ahead?
How much of the state level drug problem has federal level solutions?
Some weak spots/some opportunities: diversion programs (like drug courts); drug
treatment of inmates and parolees; science-based drug education; sentencing policies
Potential causes for the explosion in prison population growth may include: federal
resources directed towards drugs; prosecutorial charging; law enforcement arrest and
charging; more prison sentences, with longer sentences imposed; public attitude (real or
perceived) to "get tough on crime"; fewer cases paroled or pardoned; recidivism
among parolees and probationers. In short, dealing with the symptoms of drug abuse, but
failing to solve underlying causes.
WGA Drug
Policy Working GroupWGA Drug
Policy Working Group
Arizona
George Weisz, Executive Assistant for Criminal Justice, Office of the Governor
Brenda Henderson, Director, Governor's Office of Drug Policy
Rudy Navarro, Program Administrator, Governor's Office of Drug Policy
Colorado
Lynn Johnson, Senior Policy Analyst, Office for Families and Children
Hawaii
Keith Kamita, Chief, Narcotics Enforcement Division
Idaho
Kathy Ruffalo, Working Group Chair, Office of the Governor
Montana
Cathy Kendall, Grants Planning Bureau Chief, Board of Crime Control
Nevada
Richard A. Gammick, Washoe County District Attorney
Ron Gunning, Senior Washoe County Deputy District Attorney
New Mexico
Jennifer Salisbury, Secretary, Department of Energy, Minerals, and
Natural Resources
David Miller, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Governor
Leigh Snead, Office of the Governor
North Dakota
Bob Harms, Office of the Governor
Oregon
Steve Marks, Office of the Governor
South Dakota
Gib Sudbeck, Director, Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse
Texas
Johnny Sutton, Office of the Governor
Tony Gilman, Office of the Governor
Washington
Dick Van Wagenen, Office of the Governor
Wyoming
Lisa Skiles, Office of the Governor
Tom Pagel, Director, Division of Criminal Investigations
Consultants
Mathea Falco, President, Drug Strategies
Rosalind Brannigan, Drug Strategies
Kathleen Carter, Goldschmidt and Associates
WGA Staff
James M. Souby, Executive Director
Paul Orbuch, Counsel
Karen Deike, Communications Director
Shaun McGrath, Program Manager
|