DOES COUNTY HAVE THE WILL TO MAKE PROP. 36 WORK?

Proposition 36 the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000,
which California voters imprudently approved last year mandates that
people receiving their first and second convictions for drug offenses
receive treatment rather than jail sentences.

Finding the money and resources to make rehabilitation work will be a
monumental challenge for San Bernardino County.

With 57 percent of county voters and 61 percent of California voters
ill-advisedly approving the measure, the county's drug court judges,
probation officers, prosecutors, substance abuse counselors and other
officials are charged with making one of the most sweeping legal and
social changes in California history work almost overnight.

And as with any radical idea, opinions and methodology differ as to how
to bring such massive change about.

Indeed, the county Board of Supervisors has developed a plan to
implement the measure, which goes into effect July 1, that has met the
resistance of a key figure in the county's handling of drug defendants
Superior Court Judge Patrick Morris.

Morris, a critic of Proposition 36 who claims the key component of drug
rehabilitation is court monitoring something the county plan falls short
on knows of what he speaks. He is the founder of San Bernardino County's
drug court, which has won recognition across the nation for its success
in reforming hard-core drug addicts.

"Over the years, we have developed one of the finest reputations in the
nation for our drug courts," Morris told the board. "We ought to be
leading this," he said, in regards to the county's efforts to fashion a
Proposition 36 program for drug offenders.

Indeed, why should the county reinvent the wheel when it already has
probably one of the best examples of how drug treatment and
rehabilitation should work?

Money clearly is a factor. On July 1, the county will embark on an
initial $12.7 million plan to treat drug offenders in ways that no one
knows for sure will work and without the funding fully in place. Nor is
there a clue as to how much money will be needed to do what voters want.

The county has received $2.7 million from the state as seed money for
drug treatment. Once the county's implementation plan is approved by the
state Office of Alcohol and Drug Programs, the state will dole out
another $5.3 million to the county for the first year.

The total $8 million is supposed to cover basic costs of implementing
Proposition 36. Additional funds will be repaid to the county through
Medi-Cal, private insurance companies and fees paid by defendants
enrolled in the treatment programs. And the county has been asked to
chip in $1.3 million in a largely scaled-down request to pay for costs
not mandated by the initiative specifically, to cover additional
prosecutors and public defenders that will be needed to handle the huge
Proposition 36 caseload.

But there are a lot of unknowns. And a lot of unanswered questions.

For starters, there are no firm estimates on how much such a program
will cost, because there is no way to gauge how many offenders will be
eligible for the program. Estimates range from 6,500 to 10,000 drug
offenders the first year. That compares with the 1,800 drug offenders
whom county treatment programs currently serve.

And the money coming from the state is far less than the $20 million the
county has said it realistically would need each year for more public
defenders, prosecutors, judges, probation officers, substance abuse
counselors and administrative employees to handle all the additional
Proposition 36 cases.

The staggering caseloads pose problems not only for the courts, but also
for treatment providers, who already are scrambling to come to grips
with how to handle four to five times as many drug offenders as they now
do, yet with limited space and manpower.

The county's 32 drug treatment clinics have operated with full caseloads
long before Proposition 36 passed in November, and Proposition 36 money
cannot be used to build new clinics.

Thus, the county most likely will see clinics expanding their programs
rather than an abundance of new clinics. And that won't come without
growing pains.

Centers offering outpatient programs are 98 percent full, and inpatient
centers are 99 percent booked, according to the county Office of Alcohol
and Drug Programs.

Caseloads at rehabilitation centers have soared, because drug-related
crimes have skyrocketed. In the last decade, adult drug arrests have
climbed 24 percent, leaving many of the county's centers near or above
capacity.

So, the most fundamental question, "Where to put the addicts?" is one
that no one is prepared to answer, even as the county is set to be
hurled full tilt through the looking glass and into the strange world of
Proposition 36.