oversight

Limited Use of Federal Programs To Commit Narcotic Addicts for Treatment and Rehabilitation

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-09-21.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

        United S t a t e s General A c c o u n t i n g Office.
                    Washington, D.C.            20548
                                                                     09441 1




                                              For R e l e a s e on Delivery
                                              Expected a t 1 0 AM'EDT
                                              S e p t e m b e r 2 1 , 1971




                        STATENENT OF
ELMER B. STAATS, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
                           BEFORE
                     SUBCOMMITTEE NO, 4
                 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
          UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
                             ON
            [LIMITED USE OF F m E m PROGRAMS
              TO COMMIT NARCOTIC ADDICTS FOR
               TREATMENT AND RMABILITATION]
      Mr. Chairman and Members to the Subcommittee, I am
pleased to appear here today to discuss our report to the
Congress--September 20, 1971, B-l64P31(2)--0n Federal
programs to commit narcotic addicts for treatment and re-
habilitation.
      These programs were authorized by the Narcotic Addict
Rehabilitation Act of 1966 which defined certain responsibil-
ities of the Federal government in providing treatment and
rehabilitation services directly to narcotic addicts and pro-
vided the means to encourage the States to provide services
to narcotic addicts within their own jurisdiction,
      In summary, the main titles of the act are:
      --Title I which authorizes the civil commitment for treat-
        ment, in lieu of prosecution, of addicts charged with
        certain Federal crimes.
      --Title I1 which provides for the sentencing to commit-
        ment for treatment of addicts convicted of certain
        Federal crimes,
      --Title 111 which provides for the civil commitment for
        treatment of persons not charged with any criminal of-
        fense.
      --Title IV which provides for rehabilitation and post-
        hospitalization care programs for addicts civilly com-
        mitted and for financial and technical assistance to
        States and municipalities in the development of treat-
        ment programs for addicts,
     In a message to the Congress on June 17, 1971, the Presi-
dent stated that narcotics addiction has reached the dimen-
sions of a national emergency. In this regard, in 1967 it
was estimated that the number of narcotic addicts in the
United States was 125,000 and today's estimates range from
200,000 to 250,000.



                              1
           Our review was concerned with the efforts of the Depart-
      ment of Justice, and the Department of Health, Fdhx!ation, and
      Welfare in administering narcotic addict treatment and reha-
      bilitation services provided under tithes 1 and 111 of the act.
      The programs under these titles are administered j o i n t l y by
I     the U.S. Attorneys of the Department of Justice, and the Na-            37
      tional Institute of Mental Health within the Department of 9,lYB.
’
21.
      Health, Education, and Welfare.
           The legislation recognized that narcotic addiction was
      a medical problem. Title I of the act was an innovative de-
      parture from past methods of dealing with narcotic addicts in
      that it permitted, instead of criminal prosecution, pretrial
      commitment of arrested addicts who are charged with c e r t a i n
      nonviolent Federal crimes and who show prospect for r e h a b i l i -
      tation. Civil commitment is generally understood to mean
      court-ordered confinement in a special treatment facility,
      followed by release to outpatient status under supervision in
      the community, with provision f o r final discharge if the pa-
      tient abstains from drugs.
            0
                ADMISSIONS AND COMPLETIONS
     Information furnished by HEW disclosed that as of
June 30, 1971, 7,860 persons had been admitted for examina-
tion and evaluation of treatment potential under the title I
and I11 programs, At this date, there were 2,078 persons
being treated or being examined for treatment. Of this num-
ber, 121 persons were in the examination and evaluation
phase, 527 were receiving inpatient treatment, and 1,4,30
were receiving aftercare treatment in community facilities
under contract with HEW. We were informed by HEW that as of
September 14, 1971, of the total number of persons committed
under titles I and I11 of the act, 52 have successfully com-
pleted treatment and have been discharged from the program.
                        TITLE I PROGRAM
     Pretrial civil commitment (title I> has not been used
to the extent anticipated during the first 3 years of the
program--July 1967 - June 1970. Only 179 addicts were com-
mitted under title I during this period. We identified
three causes for the relatively low use of the program:
     1. lack of appropriate emphasis on implementation of
         title I by U.S. attorneys,
     2. a preference by U.S. attorneys for the use of post-
         trial commitments authorized by title I1 of the act,
         and
     3 . the practice of referring addicts to State and lo-
         cal courts for prosecution when the crimes also
         were violations of State laws.
     Also, neither the Department of Justice, through the
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, nor the National
Institute of Mental Health had encouraged the use of avail-
able financial assistance programs to develop close working
relationships between State or local courts and Federally
                              3
funded State o r l o c a l n a r c o t i c a d d i c t r e h a b i l i t a t i o n pro-
grams o r t h e development of S t a t e o r l o c a l c i v i l commitment
programs.
        In c o n t r a s t with t h e 179 a d d i c t s accepted f o r p r e t r i a l
commitment under t i t l e I of t h e act during t h e f i r s t 3 years
of t h e program's operation, 509 a d d i c t s had been sentenced
f o r treatment under t h e t i t l e I1 p o s t t r i a l commitment pro-
grams.
        The small number of a d d i c t s committed under t i t l e I was
i n s t r i k i n g c o n t r a s t t o expectations p r i o r t o passage of t h e
Narcotic Addicts R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act.            For example, there was
Congressional concern as t o whether t h e e x i s t i n g capacity--
about 1,800 beds--of             t h e two Public Health Service c l i n i c a l
research c e n t e r s a t Lexington, Kentucky and F o r t Worth, Texas
which a r e used f o r evaluation and treatment of n a r c o t i c ad-
d i c t s under the a c t would be s u f f i c i e n t t o handle t h e p a t i e n t
load.      O f f i c i a l s from the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agencies a l l e v i a t e d
t h e concern i n p a r t by pointing out t h a t they had t h e author-
i t y t o c o n t r a c t f o r a d d i t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s i f the p a t i e n t load
became a problem.
        HEW had estimated t h a t about 900 persons would be e l i -
g i b l e f o r treatment under t i t l e I f o r n a r c o t i c a d d i c t i o n each
year, f a r more than t h e 1 7 9 persons a c t u a l l y committed dur-
ing t h e f i r s t t h r e e years of t h e program.               HEW could not pro-
v i d e us supporting data f o r i t s estimate of a n t i c i p a t e d usage.
        Our determination of t h e reasons f o r t h e l o w use of
t i t l e I was based primarily on information furnished t o us by
U.S. a t t o r n e y s i n response to a questionnaire.                     Responses
received from 2 1 U.S. a t t o r n e y s representing t h e d i s t r i c t s
having t h e highest incidence of drug a d d i c t i o n , d i s c l o s e d
                                               4
t h a t they had processed a t o t a l of 48 a d d i c t s under t i t l e I
d u r i n g t h e year ended December 31, 1969.                    Ten of them re-
p o r t e d no t i t l e I c i v i l commitment cases, f o u r r e p o r t e d only
one c i v i l commitment case, and seven r e p o r t e d two o r more
cases.
         I n response t o our q u e s t i o n n a i r e , one U . S .        attorney
merely s t a t e d t h a t h i s o f f i c e d i d n o t process t i t l e I
cases.        The paraphrased comments of two o t h e r s follow.

    *     One U.S. a t t o r n e y informed us t h a t h i s i n q u i r y
          w i t h i n h i s o f f i c e e a r l y i n 1970 d i s c l o s e d no s t u d y ,
          understanding, o r u s e of t i t l e I and that few, i f
          any, of t h e s t a f f were aware of t h e e x i s t e n c e of t h e
          a c t . Although he i n d i c a t e d a d e s i r e to develop a
          v i a b l e commitment program, he envisioned problems i n
          a t t e m p t i n g delayed prosecution of t h o s e a d d i c t s com-
        ' m i t t e d f o r treatment who d i d n o t s u c c e s s f u l l y com-
          p l e t e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n . The problems would s t e m from
          t h e passage of t i m e , which might a f f e c t the a v a i l -
          a b i l i t y of witnesses o r the u s e f u l n e s s of o t h e r e v i -
          dence.

         Another U.S. a t t o r n e y s t a t e d t h a t h i s o f f i c e had n o t
         y e t developed a program f o r commitment i n l i e u of
         prosecution. He pointed out t h a t suspension of
         p r o s e c u t i o n f o r s e r i o u s o f f e n s e s w a s n o t considered
         a p p r o p r i a t e and t h a t , f o r minor o f f e n s e s , h i s o f f i c e
         favored d i s m i s s a l of t h e charges and r e f e r r a l t o t h e
         S t a t e f o r treatment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n .

         By l e t t e r dated June 16, 1971, t h e A s s i s t a n t A t t o r -
ney General f o r Administration informed us that t h e t i -
t l e I procedure had n o t been used t o t h e f u l l e s t p o s s i b l e
e x t e n t and t h a t t h e Department of J u s t i c e was i n c l i n e d t o
a g r e e w i t h t h e reasons w e had i d e n t i f i e d f o r t h e low u s e .



                                               5
       He suggested, however, t h a t t h e low use may have
been due t o o t h e r f a c t o r s as well.        H e pointed out t h a t
one major f a c t o r was t h a t , under t h e r a t h e r d e t a i l e d e l i -
g i b i l i t y requirements contained i n t i t l e I many a d d i c t s
who probably would b e n e f i t from treatment simply were in-
eligible.       He pointed out a l s o t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n t o use
t i t l e I was wholly d i s c r e t i o n a r y with t h e c o u r t s and t h a t
t h e c o u r t s were under no o b l i g a t i o n t o s t a t e reasons when
they determined not t o use t i t l e I .             He s t a t e d a l s o t h a t
the Department of J u s t i c e was n o t i n a p o s i t i o n t o com-
ment on t h e frequency with which any one given c o u r t de-
c l i n e d t o use t i t l e I .
        In our r e p o r t -we suggested t h a t t h e Attorney General
i s s u e i n s t r u c t i o n s t o U.S. a t t o r n e y s t h a t they consider t h e
use of t i t l e I i n a l l cases i n whi,ch n a r c o t i c a d d i c t s are
charged with Federal o f f e n s e s .
        The A s s i s t a n t Attorney General f o r Administration
s t a t e d t h a t our suggestion had overlooked t w o important
considerations:           (1) t h e offender might not be an e l i g i b l e
person w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e and (2) t h e r e
might be many reasons why t h e U.S. a t t o r n e y would not want
to u t i l i z e t i t l e I.   For example, i f a U.S.          a t t o r n e y be-
l i e v e d t h a t a person was not l i k e l y t o b e n e f i t from t h e
program, any e f f o r t t o g e t t h e person i n t o t h e program
might be f u t i l e .     Also, s i n c e t h e pending charge i s h e l d i n
abeyance conditioned upon t h e person's s u c c e s s f u l completion
of t h e program, t h e s i t u a t i o n f r e q u e n t l y might a r i s e when
t h e person d i d not succesqfully complete the program and,
because of t h e passage of time, t h e U.S.                 a t t o r n e y would be
unable t o t r y t h e person on t h e underlying c r i m i n a l charge.
                                            6
H e pointed o u t t h a t , i n s i t u a t i o n s such as t h i s , t h e person
w a s n e i t h e r r e h a b i l i t a t e d nor made t o pay f o r h i s o f f e n s e
and t h a t consequently n e i t h e r t h e g o a l of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n
nor t h e g o a l of j u s t i c e w a s served.
        H e s a i d t h a t any i n s t r u c t i o n s which t h e Attorney Gen-
e r a l might i s s u e could be only advisory.                        H e emphasized
t h a t any d e c i s i o n of whether t o invoke t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
t i t l e I was a p r o s e c u t o r i a l d e c i s i o n which must be l e f t t o
t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e U.S. a t t o r n e y s .
        We continue t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e p o s s i b l e a p p l i c a t i o n
of t i t l e I should be given c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a l l
c a s e s i n which n a r c o t i c a d d i c t s are charged w i t h Federal
crimes, even though such c o n s i d e r a t i o n might l e a d t o a
conclusion t h a t t h e a d d i c t i s i n e l i g i b l e o r t h a t o t h e r
good reasons e x i s t f o r n o t u t i l i z i n g t i t l e I.
        With r e g a r d t o t h e Assistant Attorney General's con-
c e r n f o r prosecuting Federal o f f e n d e r s after s u b s t a n t i a l
d e l a y s f o r purposes of t r e a t m e n t , it should be noted t h a t
the Senate Committee on t h e J u d i c i a r y , i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e
l e g i s l a t i o n i n 1966 d i s c u s s e d t h e p o s s i b i l i t i e s of t h e ef-
f e c t of d e l a y s i n c r i m i n a l prosecution.              On the b a s i s of
t h e testimony of medical a u t h o r i t i e s and t h e then-Attorney
General, t h e committee w a s persuaded t h a t p r e t r i a l c i v i l
commitment o f f e r e d worthwhile advantages and that t h e pos-
s i b i l i t y of resuming t h e c r i m i n a l p r o s e c u t i o n would remain
as a s a n c t i o n r e i n f o r c i n g t h e a d d i c t s ' d i s p o s i t i o n t o   CO-

o p e r a t e throughout t h e i r programs of treatment.




                                                      7
      The Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act provided'not only
for the commitment of narcotic addicts under Federal court
jurisdiction but also for Federal assistance to aid State
and local agencies in developing narcotic addict treatment
facilities. In addition, the Omnibus Crime Control and
Safe Streets Act of 1968 created the Law Enforcement Assis-
tance Administration with the Department of Justice, to as-
sist State and local governments to improve their criminal
justice systems--the police, the courts, and institutions
for corrections. Federal assistance under this act is avail-
able to develop narcotic addict treatment and rehabilitation
programs. Guidelines issued by the Law Enforcement Assis-
tance Administration do not encourage the development of
civil commitment programs for the rehabilitation of narcotic
addicts by State and local agencies.
     The National Institute of Mental Health grant programs,
which are concerned primarily with increasing the availabil-
ity of nonFedera1 treatment programs for narcotic addicts,
have a potential for assisting the development of State
civil commitment programs.      The National Institute's guide-
lines for the narcotic grant programs, however, do not en-
courage the development of civil commitment programs for the
treatment of addicts referred by State and local courts.
     Under the provisions of the Narcotic Addict Rehabili-
tation Act, only U . S .   district courts are empowered to in-
voke title I. Therefore, when addicts who commit Federal
crimes are referred to State or local authorities for pros-
ecution, opportunities for pretrial civil commitment in lieu
of prosecution are lost if the State does not have a civil
commitment program.

                                  8
     Because S ~ aYf e w States have civil commitment pro-
grams, we recommended in our report that the Attorney Gen-
eral and the Secretary of HEM revise their grant program
guidelines to stress the development of close working re-
lationships between rehabilitation programs and the courts
and to encourage arrangements whereby the t w o Departments
would participate jointly i n the development of State and
local civil commitment programs.
     Both departments advised us that they were taking steps
in line with our recommendation. We were also told that, in
the annual report to the President and to the Congress re-
quired under the 1970 amendments to the Omnibus Crime Con-
trol and Safe Streets Act, the Department of Justice planned
to provide data on the programs conducted, plans developed,
and groblemsencounteredin the operations and coordination
of Federal efforts to stimulate the development of State and
local civil commitment programs,
    By way of background I-EW explained that:
    At the time the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act was
    passed, it was widely believed that patients would en-
    ter the program primarily under title I and secondarily
    under title 11. Most believed that few voluntary pa-
    tients would be committed mder title 111, This, of
    course, has not been borne out. Due to the unprece-
    dented growth of drug addiction in recent years, the
    failure or inability of States and local communities
    to develop adequate treatment capabilities, and the in-
    frequent use of title I, almost all of the patient can-
    mitments under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act
    have been pursuant to title 111. As this unexpected
    pattern became clear, H E W expanded its efforts to de-
    velop community treatment capabilities. This was done
    not only to conform to congressional intent and HEW'S
    policy that voluntary patients are primarily the respon-
    sibility of the States and communities, but because
    HEW'S experience had indicated that cmunity-based
                             9
     treatment approaches would be more effective than treat-
     ing addicts in centralized Federal institutions.
      -
     ..             -   .
     The trend towards increasing support for community-
based treatment programs and in lieu of using centralized
Federal institutions is also reflected by the proposed
transfer of the Federal clinical research center in
Ft. Worth, Texas to the Bureau of Prisons, Department of
Justice. We understand that the Bureau of Prisons intends
to use the facility for treatment of persons committed un-
der title I1 and neuropsychiatric and other prisoners re-
quiring medical treatment. After the transfer, which we
understand is tentatively scheduled for October 4 , addicts
from the Western sector of the Nation will receive services
from community agencies under contract with HEW. Final ac-
tion on the transfer is awaiting agreement between the
House and Senate on differences between concurrent resolu-
tions.




                              10
                                  TITLE I11 PROGRAM

        Our review i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e
t i t l e I11 program could be improved and t h a t g r e a t e r assis-
tance could be provided t o a d d i c t s i f HEW, through i t s
g r a n t e e s and c o n t r a c t o r s , were t o a s s i s t t h e U.S.      attorneys
by performing c e r t a i n nonlegal a c t i v i t i e s concerned w i t h
helping persons who seek treatment under t h e program.
        During t h e f i r s t 3 y e a r s of t h e t i t l e I11 program,
2,801 a d d i c t s , o r about 57 percent of t h e 4,889 who volun-
t a r i l y sought commitment, were r e j e c t e d by t h e Federal
treatment c e n t e r s during t h e examination and e v a l u a t i o n
phase of t h e program.              Rejections w e r e made on t h e b a s i s
of t h e persons' being u n s u i t a b l e f o r treatment.                   A t J u l y 31,
1971 about 50 percent of t h e c a p a c i t y of t h e two c e n t e r s
w a s being used f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i n g n a r c o t i c a d d i c t s .
        The Surgeon General i s authorized by t h e Narcotic Ad-
d i c t R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A c t t o r e s t r i c t commitments under t h e
program when he c e r t i f i e s t h a t adequate f a c i l i t i e s o r per-
sonnel f o r treatment of p a t i e n t s under t h e t i t l e I11 pro-
gram are unavailable.
        H E W b e l i e v e s t h a t a higher p o t e n t i a l e x i s t s f o r suc-
c e s s f u l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n f o r persons who are highly motivated
f o r treatment than f o r t h o s e who a r e n o t so motivated.                      Ac-
cordingly t h e National I n s t i t u t e of Mental Health has
e l e c t e d t o accept t h o s e persons who have high motivation
f o r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n and t o r e j e c t a l l o t h e r s as not being
s u i t a b l e f o r treatment.        HEW advised u s t h a t :
        '!Our experience has borne out the b e l i e f of ex-
        p e r t s i n t h i s f i e l d t h a t a high degree of

                                              11
     motivation on the part of addicts is an essential
     prerequisite if treatment and rehabilitation pro-
     grams are to be successful. We have found that
     the individuals who have been most disruptive and
     uncooperative, most eager to leave the program
     prematurely, and who have profited least have been
     those with insufficient motivation who, frequently,
     were in the program only because of pressures from
     relatives and friends. Our experience has also
     demonstrated that the disruptive influence exerted
     by such addicts on the other patients is extremely
     detrimental. ' I
     E a r l y in fiscal year 1970, the chiefs of the two clin-
ical research centers, in response to a request from the
National Institute of Mental Health, coauthored a paper on
their experiences regarding the suitability of addicts for
treatment. The paper was distributed to community agencies
as a guide in screening applicants and to officials of
courts to promote greater understanding of the reasons f o r
rejection.
     In summary, the paper stated that persons being re-
jected would require large amounts of time for medical,
nursing, and social work if accepted into the program and
that additional resources of trained personnel would be
needed to treat larger numbers of antagonistic patients,
phsychotic patients, mentally retarded patients, and others
with special problems.
     Rejections by the Federal treatment centers during
the examination and evaluation phase of the program, which
is carried out in order to avoid the formal commitment of
persons considered unsuitable f o r treatment, rose from 56
percent during fiscal year 1969 to 62 percent during fis-
cal year 1970.

                             12
     mw   achowledges that the provisions of the Act, which
state that addiets will be committed to treatment Only if
they are considered likely to be rehabilitated, limits the
intake of patients into t h e progrm.    KEW befieves this to
be the i n t e n t of the Congress and Considers its practice of
"weeding-out" individuals unlikely to be rehabilitated to
be consistent with both the act and HEW'S judpent as to
the best way to manage the program at this point in time*
U . S . ATTORNEYS' RQLE IN TITLE I11 PROGRAM
     The Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act requires that an
applicant voluntarily seeking treatment for narcotics addic-
tion must petition the U.S. attorney's office and that the
U.S. attorney, in turn, must petition a U . S . district court.
Following the U . S . attorney's petition to the U.S. district
court, the court, before deciding whether the applicant
should be committed f o r treatment, requires an exambation
and evaluation of a person to determine whether he is a
narcotic addict and is likely to be rehabilitated. Al-
though most evaluations and examinations have been per-
formed at the clinical research centers, we understand that
sume are being performed in community facilities which have
contracted with HEW to perform such services.
     In response to our inquiry, many U . S . attorneys ques-
tioned the effectiveness of the title I11 program and par-
ticularly questioned their own role in assisting program
applicants. One U.S. attorney deemed the program ineffec-
tive, stating that of 43 petitions received under the
title 111 program in his district, only one person was ac-
cepted f o r treatment. Another attorney reported that all

                              13
f




    the persons sent to clinical research centers from his
    district were addicted to narcotic,drugs, yet about 75 per-
    cent were found to be unfit subjects f o r rehabilitation.
    Still anotRer, who had a high number of petitioners accepted,
    stated that the use of the courts €or title 111 commitments,
     in his opinion, was cumbersome,constituted a waste of time
     and money, delayed treatment, and deterred applicants.
         Comments which emphasized the view that the U.S. at-
    torneys ' Off ices were not social-work-type agencies were
    most frequently offered as an explanation for the lack of
    referral to available treatment centers or the lack of
    follow-up on those persons who had not pursued the steps
    to commitment or who had been found unsuitable for treat-
    ment.
            In the light of this situation, we suggested that cer-
    tain of the functions being performed by U . S . attorneys
    might be assumed by HEW.
         The Assistant Attorney General advised us that many
    of the precomitment functions currently assigned to U . S .
    attorneys were, or could be, performed by MEW. He stated
    that there was no objection to having a prescreening con-
    ducted by HEW to ensure that a person was suitable for
    treatment. MEN had no objection to expanding i t s advisory
    role to U.S. attorneys in determining the availability of
    State and local treatment facilities, although we were ad-
    vised that additional resources would be required. HEN con-
    siders it inappropriate, however, to require the Surgeon
    General, acting through the National Institute of Mental


                                   14
Health, t o perform t h e l e g a l f u n c t i o n s now r e q u i r e d of U.S.
a t t o r n e y s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t it would be unwise t o mix t h e
l e g a l and t h e r a p e u t i c f u n c t i o n s .
        W e a g r e e t h a t HEW should n o t t a k e over any of t h e l e g a l
f u n c t i o n s of t h e U.S.       attorneys.          Our concern i s t o improve
t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e t i t l e I11 program by having non-
l e g a l f u n c t i o n s performed by HEW, i n s t e a d of by U.S.              at-
torneys.

        I n our r e p o r t , w e recommended t h a t , t o provide g r e a t e r
a s s i s t a n c e t o a d d i c t s who a r e seeking treatment and t o im-
prove t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e t i t l e I11 program, t h e A t -
torney General and t h e S e c r e t a r y of HEW c o n s i d e r having HEW
g r a n t e e s o r c o n t r a c t o r s involved i n t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of
n a r c o t i c a d d i c t s provide a s s i s t a n c e t o U.S. a t t o r n e y s by
performing t h e following nonlegal f u n c t i o n s :

         1. r e c e i v i n g t h e r e q u e s t from a person seeking t r e a t -
            ment and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n und.er t h e program,
         2. determining t h a t t h e r e i s reasonable cause t o be-
            l i e v e t h a t t h e person i s a n a r c o t i c a d d i c t ,

         3 . determining t h a t a p p r o p r i a t e S t a t e o r l o c a l f a c i l i -
             t i e s are n o t a v a i l a b l e f o r t h e treatment of t h e
             person, and

         4. helping t h e person p r e p a r e and f i l e a ' p e t i t i o n f o r
            commitment w i t h t h e U.S. a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e .

        M r . Chairman, t h i s concludes my statement.                        I shall
be happy t o answer any q u e s t i o n t h a t you o r o t h e r members
of t h i s Subcommitte may have.




                                                    15