)
J J I ,j
Program Evaluation I
I
....J
, I I
.....
Santa Cruz Regional Street Drug Reduction Program
j
-
I
June, 1990
Ii
;oJ
j
--
-I ..
J
-I J "
.,
J
BOTEC Analysis COR
P
0
RAT
ION
PROGRAM EVALUATION SANTA CRUZ REGIONAL STREET DRUG REDUCTION PROGRAM
June, 1990
Table of Contents
-
Preface Executive Summary
i 11
1
Program History Program Funding Evaluation Standards Original Problem Assessment and Recommendations
2
Program and Modifications Non-funded Programs and Components
4 4
The Santa Cruz County Heroin and IV Drug Market
5
1 1
Review of Program Activities Sheriff's Office Office of the District Attorney Court Component Probation Component Drug Treatment Component Community Involvement
7 7 13
Non-funded Components County Jail System Office of the Public Defender County Substance Abuse Program County AIDS Program
19 19 20 20 22
Conclusions
23
14 14 18 18
Preface The subject of this evaluation is the mUlti-agency drug suppression project conducted in the County of Santa Cruz, California with funds provided under the federal Anti-Drug Abuse Act. Although grant funding will not expire until the close of 1990, this evaluation addresses only those activities conducted between January 1988 through Apri11990.
-
The evaluation was requested by the project's Program Managers' Steering Committee, which is composed of department heads from each participating agency, the Project Manager assigned to the grant by the County Administrative Officer, and the Executive Director of the Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Council. The evaluation was financed with "salary savings" brought about by staff vacancies during the last phase of the grant funded program. The scope and detail of this evaluation are necessarily limited. Financial constraints restricted on-site interviews and research to three days. Although BOTEe has made every effort to address the policy issues attendant to the project, it is important that managers within the community's justice system develop an agenda for continuing research and evaluation as the drug problem evolves. BOTEC would like to acknowledge the help and encouragement provided by Merle Frank, Executive Director of the Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Council, in the data-gathering and preparation of this report.
1
Executive Summary
.-
-
The Santa Cruz Regional Street Drug Reduction Program is a criminal justice initiative designed to reduce intravenous drug abuse and its attendant harms -- crime, community disorder, and the spread of the HIV infection -- by putting increased enforcement pressure on street-level drug dealers and their customers. Originally focused exclusively on heroin, the program was expanded in July, 1989, to target all intravenously-administered drugs and crack cocaine, and to include all pregnant drug users, regardless of their drug preference. Its main tactics were to intensify street-level drug enforcement and to establish an Intensively Supervised Probation system, which included urine monitoring for probationers who combined criminal activity with drug abuse .
.
The program's objectives were to reduce flagrant abuse and trafficking of the target drugs, lower the County's overall property crime rate, and hinder the spread of the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Although open-air drug dealing has not disappeared from Santa Cruz County, the program can to some degree take credit for several kinds of improved conditions:
>
County-wide property crime rates decreased 20% from 1987 to 1988.
>
The number of burglaries in Santa Cruz city declined by 13 % from 1988 to 1989, and the number of assaults by 43 %.
>
The number of burglaries in the City of Watsonville declined by 24.8% from 1987 to 1989.
>
LV. drug users "under the influence" no longer congregate in public, with the result of less general disruption to the public order, and less likelihood of accidental contact with contaminated needles.
>
The number of AIDS cases reported to the county Health Services Agency has remained virtually unchanged over the last three years.
>
The proportion of 1. V. drug users testing positive for HIV infection remains lower than that of other high-risk groups. If the program can in fact be credited with helping to suppress the spread of AIDS, it may be responsible for health care cost avoidance far in excess of its criminal justice system direct costs.
Several factors help account for the tenacity of Santa Cruz's open-air retail drug markets. Among them are the relative youth of the user population, the large number of transients -undocumented aliens, tourists, students -- who buy and sell drugs in the County, and the proximity of illicit drug wholesaling centers in the San Francisco Bay Area. 11
.-
During the project's planning stages, there was some concern that its operation would add to the workload of community agencies that were not receiving any of the project funding, such as the Sheriff's Detention Bureau and the Office of the Public Defender. Although the Public Defender's Office has been able to absorb the new workload without significant disruption, the program has contributed to the jail system's chronic overcrowding and the county's Health Services Agency has had to stretch its resources to the point that many drug users not under court order to receive treatment must endure extended waiting periods before adequate help becomes available. The apparent increase in the demand for these services is easy to misunderstand. The program has increased the number of drug addicts who are compelled by the criminal justice system to seek help for their addictions. But it is very unlikely that the program has increased the "true" demand for treatment services, which is based on the number of drug addicts in the community, particularly those who commit violence or property crimes.
111
Program History
Program Funding
In January of 1988, Santa Cruz County (SCC) and the agencies represented by the Santa Cruz County Criminal Justice Council (SCCCJC) implemented a multi-component criminal justice program aimed at mid- and street-level heroin dealers and users. Its primary purpose was to improve the County's capacity to apprehend, prosecute, adjudicate, sanction, and rehabilitate these offenders. On July 1, 1989, the scope of the program was expanded to include users of any intravenously administered drug and of crack cocaine. Pregnant drug users were also included regardless of drug preference. To reflect this modification, the program's title was changed from Reducing Heroin Use and Crime to The Santa Cruz Regional Street Drug Reduction Program.
--
The California Office of Criminal Justice Planning, which administers federal aid to state and local drug law enforcement, made an initial funding commitment of approximately $715,000. Grant continuances and extensions will bring the final program budget to approximately $1.3 million for the two-year period covered (1988/1989-1989/1990).1 , This includes one-time capital acquisitions of approximately $100,000. By the time the grant is terminated in January 1991, the program will have applied approximately $1.9 million in federal grant funds to managing the county's drug problem. Evaluation Standards
The SCCCJC developed the Santa Cruz County Street Drug Reduction Program in response to an original problem assessment and prescription performed by BOTEC Analysis Corporation of Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1 BOTEC Analysis based its original policy recommendations on the proposition that: "The test of a drug enforcement strategy is its ability to reduce drug abuse and its ill effects both on drug users and on others: neighbors, crime victims, and taxpayers. "
1 Office of Criminal Justice Planning, Anti-Drug Abuse Program Quarterly Progress Reports (January 15, 1988December 12, 1989.) 1 Mark A.R. Kleiman, Mary Ellen Lawrence, Aaron Saiger, A Drug Enforcement Program for Santa Cruz County, August 5, 1987.
1
This analysis suggested four evaluation criteria:
> Crime reduction > Drug abuse reduction > Control of community disorder
-
> Control of AIDS and HIV infection
-
Original Problem Assessment and Recommendations The original assessment concluded that Santa Cruz, a county with severely limited law enforcement resources, should choose its targets carefully. At the time the assessment was made (1987), Santa Cruz County's officer to population ratio was 1.1 to 1,000, compared with a national figure of 2.0 officers per 1,000. Reported personal and property crimes were 20% above national norms at 60 Part I crimes per 1,000 population. 2 Not only were resources strained, but drug enforcement efforts were unfocused. The only law enforcement personnel specifically assigned to drug enforcement were the seven officers assigned to the Santa Cruz County Narcotics Enforcement Team (SCCNET); one full time Assistant District Attorney working on drug forfeitures and prosecutions; one inspector in the D.A. 's office working half-time on forfeiture cases; and one Deputy Sheriff working approximately half-time on marijuana cultivation cases. Supplementing these efforts were the unplanned enforcement activities that arose from routine patrol operations and investigative follow-up of other crimes. SCCNET, originally intended to pursue cases against major violators, became increasingly involved with retail cases. Rather than choosing specific markets for intensive enforcement, it moved its operations around the county in response to citizen complaints. In 1987, drug enforcement personnel made fewer than 150 arrests in the county. Lockups and jails held fewer than 50 arrestees awaiting trial as a result of County drug enforcement . .. 3 actIVItIes. The problem assessment found that certain drug problems in Santa Cruz County (cocaine wholesaling, methamphetamine production, and marijuana cultivation) were too large to be susceptible to practicable levels of law enforcement pressure. Other potential subjects for attention included the sale of drugs to school children and the possession of drug-related assets that might be liable to seizure. These two targets received some notice in the original BOTEC project plan, which suggested limited enforcement activities in their direction. However, an attack on the use and sale of heroin appeared to be the most attractive focus for a campaign, and formed the nucleus of the Santa Cruz strategy.
2 Ibid., p. 2. 3 Ibid., p. 2.
2
The heroin problem in Santa Cruz County was daunting. State health authorities put the number of opiate abusers at 1,780 and Watsonville police could identify by name several hundred heroin users among the city's 30,000 residents. If correct, these figures indicated that Watsonville had roughly the same proportion heroin users as New York City. The Beach Flats area of the City of Santa Cruz and labor camps in unincorporated areas near Watsonville were also identified as centers of heroin sale and use. In addition to the damage it does to its addicts, heroin abuse threatens communities in three ways: it tends to be associated with high levels of property crime, heroin-related black market activity generates violent crime, and the needles used to administer the drug help to spread disease organisms including the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). In an effort to control these three consequences, the original program recommendations called for:
-
-
>
Enhanced street-level enforcement, including aggressive use of Section 11550 (the "Under the Influence" statute) of the Health and Safety Code.
>
Establishment of an Intensive Supervised Probation (ISP) program that would include urine monitoring for probationers and parolees whose drug abuse contributes to their criminal activity.
The choice of these two tactics was based on the idea that drug enforcement can work to reduce drug consumption by making it harder to procure drugs. Since the inconvenience of retail purchase is largely determined by the number, distribution, and behavior of retail drug dealers, police activity was to be directed at retail markets. Section 11550 of the Public Health and Safety Code was to be enforced for two reasons. First, the threat of under-the-influence arrests would, it was hoped, drive users indoors, which in tum would shrink street markets (reducing availability) and reduce public intoxication (reducing the impact of drug use on neighborhoods). Second, conviction on 11550 charges would get chronic users into jailor onto probation. The ISP program was designed to help drug users control their habits and to reduce property crime. Heroin users are known to be prolific property criminals; their participation in property crime is estimated to be four to six times greater than that of other offenders. Periods of heroin abstinence have been shown to reduce such offenders' property crime rates4 .
4 M. Douglas Anglin and George Speckart, Narcotics Use and Crime: A Multisample, Multimethod Analysis, Criminology (May 1988, pp. 197-233.)
3
....
Program and Modifications
The actual implementation of Reducin~ Heroin Use and Crime saw resources distributed along slightly different lines from those suggested in BOTEC s original proposal. The variations generally took the form of modifications in personneL Where experience demonstrated individual components to be ineffective or inefficient, appropriate mid-course corrections were made. I
-
-
The SCCCJC incorporated changes on July 1, 1989, under a new program title: Santa Cruz Regional Street Drug Reduction Pro~ram. The changes were applied both to make users uncomfortable out on the streets (thus making it difficult for them to locate suppliers), and to get chronic users into jailor onto probation without having to apprehend them in the process of committing a new violation, such as theft or drug possession. The modifications included:
>
Deletion of the court component.
>
Expansion of the probation component to include a Jail Transition Counselor, who would perform counseling functions similar to those of Jail Discharge Planners attached to some state prison systems.
>
Expansion of the target population to include abusers of any intravenously administered drug, smokers of crack cocaine, and pregnant women who use any type of illicit drug.
>
Graduated levels of intensive probation supervision.
>
Greater discretion for probation officers in the choice of how and when to subject probationers to urine testing.
Non-funded Programs and Components
In its original Reducing Heroin Use and Crime program, the SCCCJC chose to focus on heroin dealing and use, forgoing enhanced enforcement activities in schools and new forfeiture initiatives. The SCCCJC did not abandon these two tactics, however, choosing instead to pursue them as parts of other special programs. The Council is currently in the process of preparing a $130,000 per year grant proposal that will enable the Santa Cruz County Narcotics Enforcement Team (SCCNET) to develop a higher volume of asset seizure and forfeiture cases. Another program, Comprehensive Alcohol and Drug Prevention Education (CADPE), has been developed in part by the SCCCJC. CADPE is in its first stages of implementation and seeks to identify children at special risk of drug abuse and provide them with counseling and education.
4
The Santa Cruz County Heroin and I. V. Drug Market
Santa Cruz County's retail heroin and LV. drug market continues to be marked by significant idiosyncrasies: the user population's youth and transience, and the proximity of Santa Cruz to a large wholesale heroin and cocaine market. The age of heroin dealers and users is significant because a youthful population suggests ongoing recruitment and market expansion. In addition, a younger population tends to be more sexually active, compounding the dangers associated with the transmission of LV.related diseases such as AIDS. A second noteworthy characteristic is the large number of participants in the Santa Cruz area's heroin, crack and I. V. drug market who are foreign nationals, often from Central and South America, present in this country without documentation. Undoubtedly, their undocumented status makes it more likely that they will participate in black market activities, if only by hindering their access to legitimate enterprises. Undocumented aliens are by no means alone in Santa Cruz County's LV. drug market, however. In fact, "Anglos" -- non-Latino whites -- have accounted for 73% of all arrests made under the grant program so far. Anglos tend to be the buyers in the county's retail drug markets, while Latinos do most of the selling. As the primary market migrated from Watsonville to the Beach Flats area, this distinction has sharpened. Tourists, college students, and residents of neighboring counties feel less threatened entering the Beach Flats area, a well known tourist site graced with a long boardwalk, than they did on the streets of Watsonville. This report singles out undocumented aliens for discussion because their presence has an important effect on the Santa Cruz drug market, giving it certain characteristics that tend to make it particularly resilient. It is impossible to determine the number of undocumented aliens who have been encountered
-
in the course of program activities. However, one case investigator in the Public Defender's Office estimated that approximately 75% of her drug offense caseload (about 180 cases per year) involved undocumented aliens, many of them in the process of seeking amnesty. (This estimate is surprisingly high, in view of the ethnic breakdown of total program arrestees noted above. 5)
"Illegals" are attracted to Santa Cruz for several reasons. Politically, the area is tolerant and sensitive to their circumstances. Certain areas of the County (particularly the Beach Flats area 5 This anomaly might be attributable to the shortage of bilingual skills in the Public Defender's Office. If the person interviewed is one of the few qualified translators in the Office, the proportion of Anglos in her caseload would not be representative.
5
of the City of Santa Cruz) contain well-established networks of undocumented aliens. For those whose means of financing entry into the United States is smuggling heroin or cocaine, Santa Cruz offers a very attractive market. Unlike larger cities in California (such as Los Angeles or San Francisco), Santa Cruz does not house firmly entrenched retail-level drug organizations. Although law enforcement officials are concerned that street gangs may become increasingly involved in drug retailing, they are 6 As a result, entrepreneurs setting up new not now an important feature of the market. operations need have little fear of invading already established turf. This openness to new arrivals may end quickly if the gangs become more assertive. This relative lack of organized dealing has served to make Santa Cruz's drug market "remarkably civilized. ,,7 Rarely have Deputies found arrestees in the possession of dangerous weapons, and gang violence, while always a concern, has not been epidemic in the drug market. Again, however, the emerging influence of the gangs may change this relatively peaceful picture. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) immediately deports undocumented alien~ apprehended as part of the Santa Cruz Regional Street Drug Reduction Program. This policy has obvious advantages: a deported criminal consumes neither jail space nor the attention of a probation officer. However, Santa Cruz law enforcement officials are almost unanimous in the opinion that most undocumented aliens eventually return to the Santa Cruz area, without having benefited from drug treatment or counseling, stripped of the opportunity for amnesty or citizenship, and as likely as not bringing more heroin or cocaine with them to defray the expense of their return to the United States. This suggests a situation of considerable irony: the United States Government taking on half the transportation costs of several hundred drugrunners traveling back and forth across the Mexican-American border.
-
The transience of Santa Cruz r. V. drug users also contributes to the market's tenacity. Unaccompanied by the possibility of constructive intervention in the lives of users, or by the assurance that arrestees can be kept from returning to the market, the best enforcement efforts are unlikely to be able to significantly reduce market size. One hoped-for effect of the street reduction program -- that it would "feed on its own success" and actually shrink the market -appears far off. According to one Steering Committee member, there is still a virtually "unlimited supply" of drugs in Santa Cruz, and prices remain near or below the national average. One Santa Cruz Police Officer attributed to SCCNET estimates that cocaine costs $20-$30 per quarter-gram, and heroin $45-$50 per quarter-gram. Prices vary significantly from place to place within the county. In Watsonville, buyers benefit from the town's thriving wholesale market. There, prices range from $10 to $20 below the average in other locations for small quantities. In 6 Sheriff's Deputy assigned to Street Task Force. 7 Sheriff's Street Drug Task Force Program Manager.
6
addition, the purity of drugs tends to be higher in Watsonville than elsewhere. One user interviewed by a Santa Cruz narcotics agent characterized the Beach Flat area and Watsonville as, respectively, the "K-Mart and Mervyn's" of drug retailing.
-'
-
BOTEC's original estimate of approximately five hundred chronic heroin users is markedly lower than the actual number that the grant program has identified. BOTEC attempted to estimate only the number of "chronic" users, but law enforcement officers in the course of an arrest rarely distinguish between chronic and occasional drug users, thus arriving at a much higher number. In the first year alone, the Santa Cruz Sheriff's Office compiled a list of 1300 known I. V. drug users. By comparison, the State Department of Health estimates the county to have 1,780 opiate abusers. The above does not suggest that enforcement efforts have been futile. Santa Cruz County experienced a 20% reduction in property crime in 1988. In the City of Santa Cruz proper, burglary fell by 13 % and aggravated assaults by 43 %. No mathematical formula exists for the precise effect that incarcerating or otherwise sanctioning I. V. drug users had on property crime rates. Yet given the very substantial rise in drug cases involving I. V. drug users in Santa Cruz, and those users' high propensity to commit crime, the activities of the street drug reduction program may well have played a significant part in this change. .
Review of Program Activities
Sheriff's Office
-'
-
The Santa Cruz County Sheriff's office assigned three Deputies to the Street Drug Task Force. Relieved of conventional duties, such as responding to citizen complaints, the team was able to focus its energies solely on drug enforcement. The result was a dramatic rise in the number of drug arrests. In 1987, Deputies made only 150 drug arrests; by the next year, the number was up to 945. (In 1989, they arrested 462 people.) Activities during the program's first year (1988) emphasized arrests under Sec. 11550 H&S and disruption of retail heroin sales. However, as drug users became aware of the intensifying crackdown, they modified their behavior in two ways. They began to stay inside while intoxicated, and they changed their buying patterns. I. V. drugs other than heroin -- cocaine in particular -- became more prevalent. "Crack" cocaine was introduced into the area on a limited scale during this period. 8 It was noted, however, that crack has not become nearly as bad a problem for Santa Cruz County as it has for contiguous Santa Clara County and the Greater San Francisco Bay Area. Some officials have suggested that the grant team's 9 proactive efforts can be at least partially credited with suppressing crack abuse.
8 SC-NET Narcotics Agent from the Santa Cruz Police Department. 9 The Street Drug Reduction Team Steering Committee meeting. April 1990.
7
-"
-'
The drug market's location also shifted between the program's first and second year. From Watsonville, the primary area for retail sales moved to Santa Cruz's Beach Flats area. Sheriff's Deputies are now focussing much of their attention in this neighborhood while continuing to patrol the Watsonville area on a limited basis. According to the Sheriff's Task Force 1989 report, the Team made only 6% of its arrests in Watsonville, while 88% occurred in the City of Santa Cruz. Unincorporated areas and the city of Capitola, respectively, accounted for 5 % and 1% of all arrests. As a result of the market adjustments identified above, Sheriff's deputies have begun to focus their efforts on solicitation cases, that is, cases in which arrestees participate in a drug transaction. Such cases can result either in felony or in misdemeanor charges, depending on whether the arrestee was caught in the act of selling or of buying. Deputies estimate that they make, on average, about six arrests in an evening, each of which requires an hour and a half of paperwork. Apart from their street enforcement duties, Task Force Deputies have also been instrumental in training police officers and non-task force personnel from the Sheriff's Office and other agencies in the county. Non-task force officers have become adept at enforcing 11550 violations and to some extent are taking part in operations patterned after task-force tactics. 10 Because all appropriate cases, regardless of the arresting officer, are referred to the Assistant District Attorney responsible for program cases, these activities have had a considerable impact on the program's caseload. Sheriff's Deputies assigned to the project kept demographic records on arrested individuals. Arrest reports were used to capture data relating to age, sex, race, and place of residence. At the same time, voluntary surveys were used to collect information on drug preferences and the methods used to finance drug purchases. This data is presented on the following pages.
-'
10 Chief of Police, City of Santa Cruz.
8
Street Drug Reduction Task Force Sex of Arrestees
Female 39%
Male 61 %
-
Ethnicity of Arrestees
Black 7%
Hispanic 19%
-'
'41;.IJi'An I074% Q
9
Arrests By Sheriff's Component Location of Arrests (Jurisdiction) Watsonville 8%
Capitola 1 %
Unicorporated 6%
Santa Cruz 88%
-' Arrestees' Place of Residence Watsonville 12%
-'
S. L.! S.C 2%
Soquel 3% Out of County 12%
Scotts Valley 1 % Aptos 3%
Live Oak 9%
Transient 16% Capitale 2%
Felton 1 %
Santa Cruz 38%
10
-"
Primary Drug of Abuse Voluntary Survey Data
Cocaine/Heroin 20%
Heroin 51 %
Cocaine 29%
-Surveyed by Sherifr I Deputi..
-" 11
Source of Money to Support Drug Habit Voluntary Survey Data
Prostitution 22%
Shoplifting 5% Employed 54%
Sell Own Property 1 % Sell Drugs 5%
Social Security 4% Obtain from Friends 1 % ·Cop· for Others 6% Burgalary 2% Surveyed by Sherifr. Deputies
12
Office of the District Attorney Grant funding for the Office of the District Attorney allowed for the hiring of one additional Assistant District Attorney, who was given responsibility for prosecuting all grant cases, regardless of origin. The overseeing attorney for the program saw to the prosecution of all felony cases personally, and directed other prosecutors in the handling of misdemeanor cases.
-
Because of reporting requirements imposed by the Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCJP), estimating the caseload covered under the program is somewhat complicated. The OCJP compiles its statistics by number of defendants rather than by overall caseload, and given that many defendants are implicated in a number of different cases (and very few cases involve multiple defendants), these figures will imply an artificially low number of cases. Estimates from the District Attorney's office indicate a workload of approximately 1200-1500 cases during the three-year grant period. Misdemeanor charges (11550 violations, possession charges, or solicitation offenses in which the offender was caught buying rather than selling) made up approximately 80% of the caseload; felonies and probation violations accounted for 20%. The program's goals presented the District Attorney's office with a not uncommon dilemma: how to balance efficiency in prosecuting cases against a "no compromise" approach to pleabargaining. The tougher the stance, the more likely it is that defendants will choose to go to trial, imposing on the County increased costs in court and prosecutor time. 11550 charges were particularly vulnerable, since they could be reduced to "Public Intoxication" charges. The District Attorney's Office, however, was able to resist the pressure to offer generous plea bargains, successfully communicating its commitment to dealing severely with drug offenders. Although early in the grant program, the District Attorney's office did experience some difficulty in retaining 11550 charges, as time went on, prosecutors were able to do so more and more frequently. They also had considerable success in prosecuting probation violations, particularly in cases where the evidence took the form of a "dirty" urine sample. Unfortunately, nothing the District Attorney's Office does to improve its efficiency can solve the problem of an overcrowded court calendar. A misdemeanor case regularly takes three months to move through the adjudication process -- from arraignment to final disposition. Felony cases typically require five to six months. These delays significantly hampered the grant program's effectiveness, as drug offenders tended to have high re-offense rates during pre-trial release. An estimated 20-25 % of arrestees committed a second or third offense during this period. Enrolling offenders in a program along the lines of ISP as a condition of pre-trial release might significantly reduce their recidivism rates.
13
Court Component The only noticeably ineffective element of the Street Drug Reduction program, the court component, was discontinued in the second year of grant activity. It become apparent that four additional clerks assigned to manage the intake of cases and to facilitate them through the adjudication process could provide only limited benefit to a system struggling under overloaded calendars. There are simply too few judges available to handle the burgeoning workload of the municipal court. This is not to say that the clerks' activities were useless. Administrators requested that program cases be given "preference". And, to the extent that the California State Penal Code allows courts to prioritize, this did happen. Grant cases moved through the system expeditiously, and the probation component experienced no delays in the issuing of arrest warrants or in the processing of violations.
-
Nor, as it turns out, did the District Attorney's Office or the probation component notice court delays even during the second year of the program. Unofficial retention of the previous year'~ managerial procedures by the Clerk's Office is credited for this effect. Despite the absence of grant-funded positions, probation officers knew which clerks to speak to about grant cases, and they processed the cases without delay. The court component might best be looked upon as a worthwhile if transitory part of the program, especially useful in establishing procedures that could be followed whether or not the component was officially on line.
Probation Component The probation component quickly established itself as the star of the Street Drug Reduction program, receiving accolades from the District Attorney's Office, the County Health Department, and probationers themselves. Its performance in this program indicates that given reasonable caseload sizes, probation can make a difference in the lives of offenders. The results also raised the respect of other law enforcement branches for the probation Department, and gave it a more important role in County criminal justice planning sessions. Arrestees subject to probation under the grant were placed in an ISP program. Intensive supervision in this case meant three face-to-face contacts with probation officers, three physical examinations, and three random urine tests per week. The average caseload for an ISP Probation Officer is twenty five probationers per month, compared to two hundred per month handled by regular probation officers. Thus, the amount of real supervision time that grant arrestees receive is four times higher than that delivered to regular offenders. Probation officers exercised their discretion as to sanctions for a first probation violation. However, second-time violators were automatically subject to rearrest.
14
Few changes were made in probation component activities between years one and two. The ISP program was altered to provide two levels of supervision (Level II requiring fewer contacts t searches t and tests). These changes gave greater flexibility inISP program requirements t saving both officer time and urine testing expenses. It would be misguided to try to assess the program I s effectiveness by comparing statistics on
the rearrests and probation violations of grant and non-grant arrestees. If grant arrestees exhibit higher numbers of violations or second offenses than regular probationers t it is likely to be the result not of lower violation or recidivism rates on the part of non-grant arrestees t but of the program s strict rearrest policies and the greater likelihood that program violators will get caught. I
The Probation Department has been keeping a number of statistics on grant activity and performance:
-
>
80% of all probationers test negative for drug use on a monthly basis, although 86 % have tested positive at least once during their term of probation.
>
Although a first "dirty" test does not usually lead to a court report (85 % of all offenders receive a second chance), 438 probation violations have been reported to Superior Court.
>
17 % of the 344 probationers assigned to ISP have been enrolled in the program more than once.
>
Since June of 1989 t 69 probationers have been rearrested by their probation officers t suggesting a recidivism rate of approximately 20%. 11
At this rate, about 275 probationers in a given year are essentially drug-free. Assuming a habit costing $1,500 per month,12 this result represents approximately $5 million in revenues diverted from the drug market, and perhaps a corresponding reduction in property crime, prostitution, shoplifting, or drug selling.
11 All figures reported by the ISP program, for the period March, 1988-January, 1990. 12 As detailed in Task Force information sheets, the average arrestee reported requiring $52.30 to support his or her daily habit. This converts to an average of a little over $1,500 per month.
15
-'
Given the Probation Department's concern with the rehabilitation and eventual assimilation of offenders, the following statistics might be considered even more important than the probation drug use figures:
>
85% (292) of all on-going probationers attend counseling.
>
12% (41) have been placed in residential treatment programs.
>
ISP probation officers have also taken charge of referring mv positive offenders to the County Health Department AIDS program. 13
Despite its seeming rigidity and intrusiveness, the ISP program has not fostered a spirit of antagonism between probation officers and their clients. Rather, officers have formed close bonds with probationers, frequently becoming an important and consistent source of support to their clients. Probationers are sometimes even loath to leave the program. Probation officers who have experienced some difficulty in weaning probationers from ISP have set up "rites of passage" for them. Certificates of Completion and graduation ceremonies can have a powerful impact on probationers, many of whom have not "had the benefit of higher education," according to the Probation Department's Supervisor assigned to the program. . The ISP program's one drawback is that it necessarily makes heavy demands on staffing and resources. While ISP may be too expensive to be made into the County's dominant model of probation supervision, however, it would be unfortunate for Santa Cruz County if the ISP program ended with its grant funding. The county should begin developing (perhaps in concert with municipal police departments) a permanent ISP program with criteria for case referral. The Probation Department itself has made certain recommendations for such a program, including some with might increase its economic feasibility. The Department's request for greater discretion over the intervals and timing of urinalysis testiIig, for example, might well cut costs. However, "discretionary testing" could too easily come to mean "occasional testing." The urinalysis segment of ISP should not be allowed to lose its restraining effect. The Probation Department also suggested curtailing testing in County jail facilities. However, both Detention Bureau officials and the grant-funded Jail Transition Counselor have cautioned against doing so. It is not difficult for inmates to procure drugs from inside prison, and drug use in this setting is particularly subversive of law enforcement efforts. It fosters contempt for the legal system and frustrates rehabilitation programs. Drug testing is one of prison officials' important tools for keeping inmates within the bounds of prison regulations. Finally, the Department proposed adding a third level of supervision to the probation system. Currently, probation is assigned in periods of six months, with supervision levels I and II
-
13 Santa Cruz County AIDS Program Coordinator.
16
lasting three months each. A third three month level would both serve to increase the total amount of time offenders spend in the program and would afford them an easier transition to life after ISP, without greatly increasing program costs. Phone contact and occasional examinations and testing might be an adequate basis for this additional level of supervision. One response to the Probation Department's concern about the cost of urinalysis testing would be to investigate the feasibility of self-funding through fees assessed on probationers, instead of relaxing testing requirements. With respect to the distribution of the ISP caseload by geographic area, the Probation Department surveyed its ISP subjects on a representative "window date" of February 15, 1990. Although the caseload varies from month to month, authorities in the Probation Department indicate that the proportions are typical for the ISP program. That data is presented on the chart below.
-
Street Drug Reduction Task Force Intensive Probation Supervision Case load
Watsonville 25%
Santa Cruz 41 %
Scotts Valley 1 %
Unincorporated 30%
Time Wmdow
= Febuary 15,
Out of County 2%
1990
17
Drug Treatment Component In Year IT of the Santa Cruz Regional Street Drug Reduction Program, the SCCCJC added a Jail Transition Counseling component. The Jail Transition Counselor served grant arrestees in much the same way as a Jail Discharge Planner typically does: taking responsibility for client advocacy, life-skills training, and health and drug education. At this stage, few conclusions about the program I s effectiveness can be drawn with confidence. In March, 1990, the Jail Transition Counselor had worked with only fifteen clients. That number has risen to nineteen by the time of this writing, but it still does not constitute a base from which to judge the benefits derived from the service. However, the incumbent Jail Transition Counselor offered the following impressions. Working only three-quarter time with a caseload of six to fifteen clients, he is unquestionably underutilized. "Jail Transition" officially begins three months prior to release. He suggested that jail transition begin immediately upon incarceration, arguing that he can accomplish very little in three months' time, particularly once inmates have been hardened by time "inside". The Jail Transition Counselor's work has also been hampered by a lack of space in jail facilities for teaching and counseling sessions. Moreover, he is currently not allowed inside the main facility (which is rated for maximum security) at all. While this precaution may be necessary, it effectively deprives an important segment of grant offenders of needed services. The grant steering committee may wish to negotiate the provision of an escort for Jail Transition Counselor so that he can visit the Water Street Jail.
Community Involvement No grant component was specifically designed to coordinate community involvement in program activities. However, BOTEC Analysis did recognize this as an area worthy of consideration. In the original problem assessment, BOTEC assumed that the Latino community would be the target of special enforcement focus. Therefore, it urged project directors to "take advice from Latino leaders about the design and operation of the program." Program representatives did approach Latino community leaders at the start of project operations. Unfortunately, the alliance was never comfortable. Rather than "taking advice," representatives attempted simply to enlist support. According to a former board member of La Familia Center (the Latino community's primary community center in the City of Santa Cruz), program representatives requested that La Familia serve as a potential source for case referral, rather than allowing it to emphasize public relations or drug education. As a result, board members felt that they were being asked to "spy on their community." This incident began and ended participation by Latino community leaders in the Street Drug Reduction Program.
18
Even so, Task Force operations seemed to have a positive effect on the Latino community. Deputies did concentrate their efforts primarily in the Beach Flats Section of Santa Cruz, an area heavily populated by Latinos. But, as noted above, arrestees were predominantly Anglo. When asked, the Director of La Familia Center exhibited little knowledge of the program's activities. This itself implies that the Task Force has managed to establish a quiet presence in the Beach Flats area, reducing crime without inciting a negative reaction on the part of the community.
Non-Funded Components Concerns were raised about the likelihood that project activity would increase the workloads of some agencies not reached by any of the grant funding. Assessing these concerns with any precision would require an auditing process well beyond the scope of this evaluation. However, we can report some general impressions.
-
County Jail System The County Jail System currently faces a significant overcrowding problem. In 1988, the total average monthly population of all facilities (Main Jail, Jail Farm, and Blaine Street) was 574, or 39% above their total rated capacity of 412. In 1989, the average monthly population was 597, or 44 % over capacity. Average monthly population for January and February of 1990 was 630; 54% over capacity. 14 We derived program conviction and sentencing averages for 1988 based on information from the Street Drug Reduction Program's Final Quarterly Progress Report for Year I (October 16, 1988 - January 14, 1989). Although this period does not coincide precisely with calendar year 1988, which serves as the basis for the Detention Bureau's statistics, it presents a fair approximation of conviction figures and average incarceration time over a twelve month period. To calculate program's impact on the County Jail system in 1989, we combined information from the Street Drug Reduction Program's last two quarterly reports of Year I, with the first two quarterly report periods for Yearn. In 1988, 245 program arrestees were convicted and incarcerated in County Jail facilities. These arrestees served, on average, sentences of 5.6 months, or approximately 46% of one
14 Note that analysis of inmate counts is complicated by discrepancies between the reporting periods that the Sheriff's Detention Bureau uses and those that the Street Drug Reduction Program uses. The grant program presented its First Year Quarterly Progress Reports based on a July 15 fiscal year. The Sheriff's Office Detention Bureau Statistics are reported by calendar year.
19
year's jail time each. 15 This implies that program arrestees required 112.7 jail bed years 16 , or 27.35% of the jail system's rated capacity. The jail system does not, however, operate at its rated capacity. By adjusting this proportion to reflect the actual number of jail bed years provided in 1988 (574), we can conclude that program arrestees required 19.63% of the county's jail bed years. This proportion increased to 21.5% in 1989, when the program generated 280 arrestees and the county provided 597 jail bed years. Office of the Public Defender It is difficult to asses how the Street Drug Reduction Program has affected the Office of the
Public Defender, because information from that office on total case load and case load generated through grant activity is unavailable. Given the likelihood that a majority of program arrestees require the services of the Public Defender, it is not unreasonable to estimate that the office would be involved in approximately 85 % of program generated cases. This would translate to 782 cases in Year I of the program, and 351 thus far in Year IT. According to the Chief Public Defender, his office was able to "handle the workload." However, he did express concern about the amount of time his lawyers were able to spend on each case. "This system," he said, "is not set up to ensure that defendants receive quality representation. That's what happens whenever you have an imbalance in funding." Despite the strain on the Public Defender's time and resources, the office seems to have performed well for its clients. In Year I of the grant program, the conviction/adjudication rate for program arrestees was only 35%, or 311 convictions of 869 defendants. In Year IT so far, the proportion of convictions is higher, with 179 convictions of 390 program defendants, or 45 % of all cases. County Substance Abuse Program The Street Drug Reduction Program has done a good job of identifying people in need of drug treatment and counseling. It has also had a considerable effect on the distribution of treatment and counseling resources to the Santa Cruz community, significantly increasing the percentage of criminal justice referrals being handled by the County Substance Abuse Program. In the 1987-1988 fiscal year, criminal justice referrals accounted for 51 % of all outpatient drug treatment clients. In fiscal year 1988-1989, that number was up to 65% . There is no
15 Data on the pre-trial detention time of program arrestees were not available. 16 The term "jail bed year" is used here to define the availability of one jail bed for one year. Thus, 245
--
program subjects x 46 % of a year = 112.7 jail bed years.
20
waiting list for outpatient treatment. However, the increase in criminal justice referrals has seriously strained the resources of the County Health Services Agency (HSA). Although the Street Drug Reduction Program does not account for all criminal justice referrals, Probation Department figures estimate that 85 % of this program's probationers (or 292 clients) have received outpatient treatment. A proportion of this population has received services from Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous. There is no cost to the County for participation in those programs. However, services provided by the ALTO Counseling Center (the County's primary publicly funded outpatient service provider) costs an average of $893 per patient year 17 . This implies that the program's activities have resulted in a maximum outpatient counseling cost to HSA of $260,756. 18 Currently, criminal justice referrals account for 70% of all county-funded residential treatment clients, which is particularly burdensome, given the two to three month waiting list for residential treatment. "It has gotten to the point," reflects the HSA Substance Abuse Program Administrator, "that drug treatment resources are increasingly becoming available only to violators of the law. There are fewer and fewer opportunities for noncriminal justice referrals." The financial burden placed on HSA for inpatient services is about $344,400, o~ $8,400 per client for the 41 clients referred from ISP. Combined costs for direct outpatient services and inpatient treatment could total as much as $605,156. This figure is equal to approximately 46% of the grant funds awarded by the state to conduct the Street Drug Reduction Program during the two year period studied in this evaluation. There is little that the SCCCJC could have done to include drug treatment under the grant's umbrella. OCJP guidelines required that criminal justice grant money be appropriated to criminal justice agencies only. The one variance allowed by the guidelines was funding for "Custodial Drug Treatment", an allowance that was used in Year IT to finance the Jail Transition Counselor. Yet it is not "in custody" treatment that accounts for the real strain on County drug treatment resources; rather, it is the demands made by Probation Department referrals and by offenders released after completion of their sentences.
17 HSA staff indicated that public funding provided to ALTO totaled $203,578 for the current fiscal year. ALTO reports a total adult client population of 228 (North and South County combined). The average cost to the County for each client who receives a full year of service is therefore $893.00.
-
18 The actual cost is no doubt lower than this "ceiling" estimate since (1) some of the program subjects who received treatment were required to pay part of the costs, (2) program subjects who received treatment from AA and NA had no real impact on the treatment budget, and (3) the cost of ALTO services in prior years was probably somewhat less due to inflation and staff salary increases.
21
County AIDS Program One intended result of the Street Drug Reduction Program was to slow the spread of AIDS and the HIV infection. Data on AIDS and HIV transmission throughout the United States are inadequate, and Santa Cruz County is no exception. Assessing the program I s impact on the epidemic is virtually impossible, but if the Street Drug Reduction Program can be credited with helping to suppress the spread of AIDS, the costs avoided in public health care may easily eclipse the costs incurred by the criminal justice system. What information does exist on AIDS cases and HIV infection rates is fairly encouraging. Despite the fear that the number of AIDS cases would increase geometrically each year, the number reported has remained relatively constant in Santa Cruz (26 in 1987, 32 in 1988 and 24 in 1989).19
-
A significant increase in the number of people who were tested for HIV infection in the last half of the decade (210 in 1985, 1,779 in 1989) was accompanied by a decline in the proportion testing positive (from 12.9% in 1985 to 1.7% in 1989). However, this drop is due largely to a change in the characteristics of the population seeking testing. Since 1987, the majority of those tested were heterosexuals with multiple partners. LV. drug users, the Street Drug Reduction Program's target population, have shown a 1.2% rate of HIV positivity, comparing favorably with other high risk groups, such as homosexual and bisexual males (whose positivity rates are 18% and 9.9%, respectively). Gay/bisexual male LV. drug users also show a lower positivity rate (13.3%) than homosexual men. However, the number of Gay/bisexual LV. drug users who were actually tested is significantly lower than that of any other high risk group. Between 1985 and 1989, only 9 were tested, compared to 516 homosexual males, 503 bisexual males, and 726 LV. drug users. See the following table for a comparison bet~een Santa Cruz County and the State of California in HIV infection rates among each of these groups.
-
-
19 Santa Cruz County AIDS/HIV Update, (Cumulative Data Through December 1989), p. 1. 22
Santa Cruz County ATS HIV Antibody Testing 1985-1989
Risk Group Homosexual Males Gay/Bisexual Male IVDU's Bisexual Males IV Drug Users
% + (SC County)
20
% + Calif. (7 /88-S/89)
18.0% 13.3% 9.9% 1.2%
20.1% 2S.7% 11.5% 3.1%
The Santa Cruz Street Drug Reduction Program has been of assistance to the County Health Services Agency (HSA) AIDS program in several ways. According to the County AIDS Program Coordinator, all criminal justice testing and client referrals to the HSA have come from that program. Since LV. drug users are substantially less likely to "self refer" than other high risk groups, the potential to lose contact with this group is ominous, raising concerns that a higher rate of HIV infection may occur due to the lower incidence of proactive . . 21 mtervention. VI
County Jail statistics show that the 229 inmates who have consented to testing make up approximately 29 % of all 1. V. drug users tested within the past four years. Of those 229 tested, 4 have tested positively (21 % of total identified HIV positive LV. drug users.) Numbers for probationers consenting to testing are unavailable. ISP probation officers and the Jail Transition Counselor have also been instrumental in educating program offenders on HIV transmission and available health care resources. Finally, the Street Reduction Program has been able to identify a large "at risk" population. The HSA AIDS program, which is 70% grant funded, has found the intelligence services and statistics provided by the program to be helpful in their own grant writing and programming activities.
Conclusions The Santa Cruz Regional Street Drug Reduction Program combined intensive retail level enforcement with rigorous urine monitoring for identified drug using offenders. It thus
20 From the Santa Cruz County AIDSIHIV Update (Cumulative Data Through December 1989.) 21 It should be noted, however, that resources for HIV testing of I. V. drug users are available from sources other than HSA's AIDS program, including the county-funded methadone clinic, street outreach programs, and a newly developed HSA Mobile HIV testing program that travels to drug and alcohol treatment facilities throughout the county.
23
represented the logical next step after the Lynn (Massachusetts) Heroin Task Force, on which it was modeled in part. One of the program's main intended effects was a reduction in the incidence of property crime. Measured offense rates, particularly for burglary, did, in fact, decline significantly over the duration of the program. However, the evaluation study could not determine the precise cause-and-effect relationship between the program and the change in crime rates. Other programs, such as enhanced efforts by SCCNET and expanded neighborhood watch activity, probably deserve to share the credit. Another goal was to arrest, and if possible reverse, the growth of flagrant illicit drug markets. The Santa Cruz markets proved more resilient in the face of enforcement pressure than the Lynn market had been. This evaluation makes no estimate of volume changes in the drug markets; the data were simply not available. The program did succeed in creating two results which, other things equal, should have tended to reduce the volume of drugs sold and consumed. First, it largely drove dealing indoors, which tends to reduce purchase activity on the part of new buyers by making it more difficult for them to locate sellers. Second, it markedly reduced drug use by drug involved offenders, who otherwise tend to be frequent buyers. The program has also generated three positive organizational outcomes. First, the effectiveness of proactive policing has been demonstrated by the Sheriff's component. Deputies assigned to the unit have been able to gather and make use of better offender data than is usually available to patrol and detective personnel. Since they have not had to respond to calls for service, they have been able to focus their efforts on crime deterrence through a routine of preventative street presence and prompt apprehension upon observation of criminal behavior. Second, the ISP protocols have reportedly been advanced by the State's Office of Criminal Justice Planning as a model for other California probation agencies. Finally, the grant's Program Management Steering Committee has proven to be an unusually effective forum for multi-agency program management. It is clear that this model could be applicable in a variety of other initiatives that cross disciplinary or jurisdictional lines. Even had there been no grant funding, the program's costs were modest compared to the problems it addressed. The program's direct costs represent an expenditure of less than 25 cents per month per county resident. (Additional studies would be necessary to evaluate the program's indirect costs to the jail, court system, and drug treatment agencies.) If the decline in property crime or the slow spread of HIV were in any substantial measure attributable to the grant-funded program, it would have to be considered money well spent.
24
