PROP 36 MAY REQUIRE DOUBLING OF DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS

Treatment makes more sense than jail for non-violent drug offenders, county
officials agree, but it's likely to cost more money than Proposition 36
will provide.

Representatives of eight county departments, including the district
attorney and public defender, took part Monday in a public information
meeting chaired by state Sen. Wesley Chesbro. They told a packed audience
in the County Courthouse of the progress they're making toward implementing
the new state program, set to start in July.

To handle the numbers potentially eligible for the program, they said, the
county may need to double its present drug treatment capacity.

Proposition 36, passed by a wide margin in November, mandates that persons
convicted of drug possession be sentenced to probation and treatment,
rather than to jail, if no crime of violence was involved. Parole violators
will be treated rather than returned to state prison.

The measure also provides $120 million a year for six years to help
counties pay for the extra treatment facilities that will be needed. Of
this, Humboldt County will receive $492,452 next year, which can be used to
place convicted drug possessors in any state-licensed drug treatment program.

Public Defender Jim Steinberg estimated that up to 300 people a year may be
eligible for the program, although he stressed that the figure is no more
than a "best guess."

Tom Antoon, manager of alcohol and drug programs for the county, said about
125 people are now in county-funded drug treatment programs, and perhaps 75
more in private programs run by St. Joseph Hospital and other non-profit
organizations. There is a waiting list of many months for most of these
programs.

District Attorney Terry Farmer said there is concern that drug users
ordered into treatment by courts could swamp local facilities, leave no
room for others seeking help.

"You shouldn't have to get arrested in order to get treatment," Chesbro said.

Antoon said the state money will be used to expand the county's treatment
capacity, but will probably not be enough to meet all the new demand. He
noted that Prop 36 money cannot be used for some expenses connected with
treatment programs, such as drug testing.

Nevertheless, he said, the county is fully committed to making Prop 36 work
here.

The law allows treatment to continue for as long as a year, with up to six
months of follow-up monitoring. Antoon said not all of it will be in
residential programs -- much will involve education and outpatient treatment.

There are other problems with the program besides a shortage of treatment
capacity. Katherine Bell, who heads the Department of Mental Health, said
that from 10 to 40 percent of the drug and alcohol abusers her department
treats are "dually diagnosed" with other mental illnesses that may stem
from or contribute to their addiction.

The Prop 36 funds do not cover treatment for illnesses other than drug
addiction, Bell noted. And while many patients must take mood-altering
medication to control their mental illnesses, she said, many treatment
programs do not allow participants to use any such drugs.

Members of the audience, many of them connected with local drug treatment
programs, voiced similar concerns and others of their own. Among these was
the fate of the program when funding runs out.

Chesbro said the intent of the six-year pilot project is to show that drug
treatment is more cost-effective than jail, and thus to obtain permanent
state and county funding. But he warned that funds might be cut if budget
troubles arise, or that the Prop 36 appropriation might become a substitute
for broader-based drug treatment.

Joel Pace and other speakers noted that Prop 36 addresses only the needs of
adult drug offenders, but does nothing for those younger than 18. Chesbro
agreed this is a serious fault, as treatment is most effective if the
recipient is young and has not been using drugs long.