The current state budget crisis has challenged every branch of government to examine its operations and find ways that government can function more efficiently, effectively and frugally.

The Department of Corrections has recently come under scrutiny. Arizona’s prison population has grown to approximately 31,000 inmates, which exceeds the prisons’ design capacity by 4,000. As the cost of building and maintaining prisons has burgeoned, legislators have decided to reexamine our criminal code and, specifically, mandatory sentencing laws. Their objective is to determine whether the current system is the most effective way of dealing with criminals, or if there are alternatives to incarceration that can protect the community — both short-term and long-term — in ways that are more cost effective. Part of this investigation should include a look at the demographics: who is being sent to prison and why?

A significant percentage of defendants who are ultimately sentenced to prison initially become involved in the criminal justice system as a result of their addiction to drugs and/or alcohol. Typically, their crimes fall into one of three categories. The first involves the use of illegal substances and sales of small amounts of drugs to support their habit. The second involves driving while under the influence of illegal substances or alcohol. The third includes other crimes that occur while they are under the influence (such as assaults) or are committed to enable them to buy drugs (such as burglaries and thefts). In other words, but for their addiction, these people probably wouldn’t be committing crimes.

While putting addicts in prison will temporarily prevent them from committing additional crimes, it does nothing to correct the underlying problem of addiction. And because inmates do not receive effective substance abuse treatment while in prison, the person who comes out at the end of the sentence is the same person — with the same addiction — as the person who went in (if not worse). Sending an addict to prison doesn’t solve the problem posed by these individuals; it only postpones it.

On the other hand, there is a growing body of research demonstrating that a program of outpatient treatment combined with close probation and court supervision can be an effective way to reduce substance abuse and prevent crime. In 1998, following the lead of other courts throughout the country, Pima County Superior Court began its Drug Court program, with the goal of assisting drug-dependant offenders in learning to lead substance-free lives. Participants are required to complete a year of intensive substance abuse treatment, attend frequent court review hearings and otherwise comply with probation requirements.

The court recently completed a study to determine the effectiveness of the program in preventing crime. The study compared arrest rates for random samples of three groups of defendants convicted of possessing drugs for personal use: those who graduated from Drug Court, those who failed Drug Court and were placed on standard probation, and those who were placed on standard probation without ever being in Drug Court. The results showed that 24 per cent of the sample of those who graduated from Drug Court since 1999 were subsequently arrested on a new charge. On the other hand, the arrest rates for those who either failed the program or were never put in the program during the same period were 61 per cent and 65 per cent, respectively.

What accounts for Drug Court’s higher success rate? Of course, Drug Court has an effective substance abuse treatment program. But that alone would be insufficient — such programs are available to all probationers, whether or not they are in Drug Court. The difference lies in the fact that the program is administered by a team of professionals representing all interested parties: court, county attorney, defense counsel, probation and treatment. Working together cooperatively, this team closely monitors each participant’s progress and provides immediate feedback. At weekly Drug Court review hearings, progress is praised and rewarded, and violations are given immediate sanctions. Friday’s drug use, revealed in Saturday’s random drug testing, will result in Monday’s imposition of relapse treatment, community service work or a few days in jail.

Not everyone in Drug Court succeeds. Some are not ready to give up drugs, and even the prospect of a prison term is not sufficient motivation. Eventually, however, most participants get the message that addiction is destroying their lives, and they make the decision to take control of their addiction. In addition to successfully completing treatment, they also finish their education, they get jobs, and they pay their fines and fees. In other words, successful participants make the changes that enable them to lead productive lives as substance-free, law-abiding citizens.

The cost of prison incarceration exceeds $20,000 per year per inmate. This figure does not include indirect costs, such as tax-supported welfare payments to families whose primary breadwinner is sent to prison and other economic costs to the community. The ultimate cost is even higher when post-release recidivism rates are taken into account. It’s worth noting that half of those entering prison each month are former inmates who violated their release conditions.

The cost of Drug Court is around $4,200 per year per participant. This includes the cost of treatment, drug testing and probation supervision. And the figure does not reflect probation and program fees assessed against participants and actually paid. In fiscal 2003, Drug Court participants paid more than $150,000 toward these assessments.

A few years ago, there was a television commercial touting the sale of oil filters in which a mechanic tells the customer, “You can pay me now or you can pay me later.” Ben Franklin put it in a slightly more quaint fashion: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Arizona voters have already decided that it makes more sense — both short-term and long-term — to sentence an addict to treatment rather than prison, at least in the first instance.

But it isn’t enough just to say that addicts shouldn’t be sent to prison. If we are to achieve the goals of crime prevention and community protection, we must pay for the tools needed to enable these people to turn their lives around. If programs like Drug Court are to succeed, we must be willing to pay for appropriate substance abuse treatment for those who can’t afford it, and we must hire probation officers to supervise these defendants. The cost is certainly less than incarceration, but there is a cost. And if we don’t buy that ounce of prevention now, we will continue to pay for the pound of cure at a cost that continues to escalate.

Patricia Escher was appointed to the bench at Pima County Superior Court in 1997. She has served as a juvenile court and as a criminal court judge. Judge Escher has been the presiding judge of the Pima County Drug Court since July 2002.