VOTER-ORDERED DRUG REHAB PROMISING BUT COSTLY

Prop. 36 Treatment Requirements Put Counties In A Pinch

California's counties are starting to come up short of cash to pay for
treatment programs required for small-time drug offenders under Proposition
36, county officials say.

While the nearly year-old drug-treatment system has gotten off to an
unexpectedly smooth start in many respects, the large number of offenders
who have plenty of other problems -- including mental illness, poverty,
homelessness and long rap sheets -- is straining the law's financial
foundation, the officials say.

In some cases, counties have been forced to use their general funds to
support treatment programs required by the new law. And other counties fear
their turn may be next.

"We have been told that the average participant in the program had 14 prior
arrests -- not necessarily for drug-related offenses, but for various
different things," said Lydia Becerra, a spokeswoman for county alcohol and
drug programs in Los Angeles.

"It is an indication to us that their problems are often more severe than
we had anticipated."

More troubled clients mean more treatment -- and that in turn is starting
to hurt some counties' budgets.

Proposition 36, passed by state voters in 2000, dramatically changed the
state system for dealing with drug cases by requiring that those arrested
for use or possession of drugs in small quantities be given treatment
instead of jail time.

Before the measure passed, the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst
office projected that 24,000 users a year would receive treatment under
Proposition 36.

Actual annual totals will not be available until next month, the first
anniversary of the law's implementation, but the California Department of
Alcohol and Drug Programs, the lead state agency in putting the measure
into action, said that in the first six months after the new law took
effect, 12, 000 people statewide were referred to treatment.

However, a more recent review by the Drug Policy Alliance -- a Sacramento
organization that proposed the ballot measure in 2000 -- said that as of March,

13,695 people had been enrolled in six counties alone: Contra Costa, Los
Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura.

Randy Snowden, director of alcohol and drug programs for Napa County, said
treating Proposition 36 clients with extensive criminal histories and
mental health problems has proved costly.

Running Out Of Funds

The initiative provided $120 million a year to be split among California's
58 counties for treatment and law enforcement costs, Snowden said. That is
barely enough to pay for drug treatment, he said, let alone the panoply of
other mental health needs.

"Because so many of them need much more extensive treatment than we had
originally projected, there are insufficient facilities to handle all the
cases, and there really isn't enough money to pay for the services they
need," Snowden said.

"If you add it up, the total cost of providing the Prop. 36 programs we run
is about three times the amount of money we get from Prop. 36," Snowden
said. "All Prop. 36 has done is add to the (county's) net deficit."

As a result, officials in Napa and some other counties have been forced to
tap their general funds, while their colleagues elsewhere fear they will
soon do the same.

"Money is the big problem," said Larry Bogats, human services manager for
San Mateo County, which has already seen about 500 new clients under
Proposition 36 and expects eventually to have about 1,500. "Year two, year
three -- I think we are going to hit that funding wall."

Even the Drug Policy Alliance admitted clients' peripheral problems are
causing financial difficulties, but the organization called the initiative
a success and said the fiscal crunch will eventually ease.

"We anticipate that the number of individuals who qualify (for Prop. 36)
will decrease over time as tens of thousands of them receive treatment,"
said a March progress report by the alliance.

Overlap In Patients

Some county drug treatment administrators said the clients generated by
Proposition 36 seem to be the same people they were already trying to help.

"Here in San Francisco, for years we have been seeing some really serious
cases of people with drug problems that are complicated by mental health
problems, homelessness and so on," said Bruce Occena, director of treatment
access for the city's Proposition 36 program.

Because San Francisco has been pushing drug diversion and other
alternatives to jail for abusers much longer than most other California
communities, Occena said, the city has not been surprised at the treatment
needs of Proposition 36 clients.

"It's a little too early for detailed trend data, but it seems that the
majority of the people we are seeing in the system now are people who have
been in the system before," Occena said.

It is too early to tell whether Proposition 36 is graduating people who
will remain drug free -- or what percentage will even complete treatment.
The state is preparing a year-end review scheduled for summer release.

Some Early Successes

Aside from funding complaints, almost everyone contacted by The Chronicle
involved in implementing the programs agreed the new system has started well.

Many of the predicted problems -- including a paralyzing amount of
litigation, too few treatment facilities and a scarcity of treatment to
meet initial demand -- have not materialized.

Even the California District Attorneys Association, which opposed the
measure, said there have been surprisingly few glitches.

"There has been a really high level of cooperation between all the parties
who are involved," said Lawrence Brown, a former Ventura County prosecutor
who serves as executive director of the group.

"Most of the state's elected district attorneys and law enforcement
officials campaigned against Prop. 36, but once the voters made it clear
that this was the way they wanted to go, everybody sincerely tried to
follow the public's will," Brown said.

County drug treatment administrators said they are pleased with the
progress as well.

"The biggest thing was to get the whole infrastructure in place and get
things running smoothly," said Pat Furlong, the director of Alameda
County's program. "We have more than 1,000 people participating at this
point in time, and most of them probably wouldn't have been in treatment
otherwise."

Some longtime drug abusers say the new law has offered them the first real
hope of a normal life.

Christina Luft of Sacramento said she has been a heroin addict for 11 years
and worked as a prostitute "and ripped people off" to support her habit.
After Luft's last arrest on felony heroin charges, Proposition 36 channeled
her into a residential treatment program and drug counseling.

"I just got accepted into a long-term transitional housing program for
low-income women," she said. "My turnaround is just going great."