MISSOURI WATCH: THE HIGH COST OF BRICKS AND BARS

Perhaps nothing says more about the times in which we live than the recognition that Missouri's Department of Corrections is scheduled to receive a larger boost in the next budget than any agency in state government.

Missouri taxpayers will pay more to increase appropriations for Missouri's penal system than they will pay for increases in either welfare assistance or public education. Indeed, with the increases being proposed by Gov. Mel Carnahan, budget increases for the Corrections Department will be nearly four times larger than have been scheduled for all of the 525 public school districts in the state.

Furthermore, the study shows that the per capita cost to operate a rapidly expanding penal system will reach $114.25 in the fiscal year that begins July 1. This compares to a per capita cost figure of $42.54 as recently as fiscal year 1995.

When he unveiled his proposed budget to members of the General Assembly the other day, Gov. Carnahan's almost inaudible recommendation to build two more prisons and expand two others now under construction came as something of a shock to his audience. There had been few signals that the multi million-dollar prison construction already under way would have to be supplemented as early as fiscal 1998.

Although there would be those who would assign blame for this huge crime bite into the taxpayers' pockets to the governor or his staff, nothing could be further from the truth. Carnahan is not to blame any more than his predecessors, who sometimes seemed indifferent or perplexed about how to handle this problem. Neither are lawmakers who in past sessions have pushed for, and enacted, more stringent prison sentences for those committing serious crimes. Their reactions mirrored the general view that the best way to reduce crime was to imprison the perpetrators and throw away the keys.

This overly simplistic view, however, has resulted in the current crisis, one that at this moment appears to have no end. It's true that violent crime rates have been lowered somewhat in many cities, and this reduction could well signal a slowing of the march to more and larger prisons. In fact, the governor assigned at least partial credit of this reduction to stiffer sentences which he had recommended during his first term. Interestingly, he did not quote any reliable studies to confirm his statement.

The somewhat lower, but still far too high, crime rates may well be traced to a somewhat smaller number entering the prime-crime age group: 18 to 25 years of age. Fewer numbers in this category would provide fewer criminals, and if this is indeed the case, then society needs to brace itself for a future increase in numbers in this age category.

The contention that longer, stiffer sentences, coupled with multi million-dollar prison construction projects, will resolve the state's disturbing crime problem is misleading at best. These may be factors in lowering crime rates but they are not complete answers. Not at all.

Crimes are being committed for two principal reasons: drugs and poverty. There isn't a reputable study of crime that doesn't point to these two components, and while our elected officials and the public at large may recognize their importance, neither group has proposed or implemented reasonable efforts to address seriously these two factors.

After spending billions and billions at both the state and federal levels, illegal drugs are as accessible today as they were in the free-flowing 1970s -- except today's varieties are much more powerful, much more dangerous. The illegal substance menu is crowded and overflowing, from beer and liquor to narcotic varieties that can be produced from ingredients available in many pharmacies. Despite huge, multinational interdiction efforts, the supplies of traditional drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, remain almost unimpeded.

Such conditions make past efforts such as "just saying no" seem ridiculous. So, too, do efforts to reduce imports by employing more and more personnel to stop determined and well-financed importers. Interdiction is a needed part in the war against crime, but it is a woefully small part of the battle.

The most recent Rand Institute study on this subject claims that effective drug treatment programs are seven times more cost effective than adding more police and constructing expensive prisons. The study centered on several neighborhoods in several urban areas around the country, and in instances where effective drug counseling and drug treatment centers were prevalent enough to deal with addiction levels, crime rates were dramatically and drastically reduced. The Rand study was extensive enough that it was able to conclude that additional enforcement efforts, by themselves, were virtually ineffective, and it was only when they were combined with effective drug clinics that crime rates were reduced.

Missouri has taken only halting steps in the area now being spotlighted by the Rand report. The state's principal treatment agency is the Division of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, one of three sections of the Department of Mental Health. Traditionally this part of the department has been underfunded and understaffed, with its primary emphasis centering on mental illness and developmental disabilities. Much of the money to operate the division in the past has come from federal programs, with little fiscal input from the state.

If the Rand study is correct, and a great many experts swear it is right on target, then Missouri should begin a much accelerated substance abuse treatment effort, increasing its spending at least at levels now being assigned to new prison cells. The immediate prospects for this are dim: Gov. Carnahan's new budget calls for a nearly $1 million reduction in state drug treatment programs.

~Jack Stapleton of Kennett is the editor of Missouri News and Editorial Service.