COUNTIES RACE TO IMPLEMENT NEW DRUG LAW

With a July 1 deadline fast approaching, California counties are racing the
clock to give birth to a dramatically new way of dealing with many
thousands of non-violent drug offenders: sentencing them to treatment
instead of hard time.

If there is a surprise in how this new approach is playing out, it is the
zeal with which judges, district attorneys, public defenders, and law
enforcement, probation and parole officials have set themselves to the task.

It's surprising because most of those people opposed the passage last
November of Proposition 36, which dictated a softer approach to the problem
of drug use and drew overwhelming support from voters.

``This is a very unique situation where normally mortal enemies are at the
table in a collaborative effort to make this work,'' said Mike Brady, an
aide to state Sen. John Burton, D-San Francisco, who is carrying
legislation to provide funds for testing of those in treatment.

``If this works,'' Brady added, ``you will see a national trend following
California's lead in order to reduce crime, incarceration and the social
costs to the public.''

There is also concern. The proposition provided no money for drug testing,
which prosecutors and a lot of treatment providers consider a key element
in determining whether treatment is working.

Nor did it provide any money for supervision, which state and local law
enforcement, probation and parole officials say is crucial to protecting
the public.

Prominent among counties that have embraced the proposition's virtual
decriminalization of drug use with a swift response to expanded treatment
are several in the Bay Area, including Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo,
Santa Cruz and San Francisco.

Across the state, however, the level of preparation varies ``from soup to
nuts,'' according to the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs,
because the extent of the drug problem varies from county to county and,
for many counties, this is a new battleground in the war against drugs.

``Most counties are putting final touches on implementation plans. Some,
like Santa Clara, Los Angeles and Sacramento, got a jump-start,'' said
Maria Caudill, spokeswoman for the State Department. ``Others are just in
the beginning phases and are trying to grapple with the larger issue of how
they're going to make it work.''

Those counties that know they will have a large number of offenders
qualifying for treatment say they're going full bore to implement the
proposition before July 1.

Take San Francisco.

``Our main concerns are heroin, our single biggest public health problem,
and cocaine. We average one death every other day from heroin overdoses,''
said Phyllis Harding, director of substance abuse services for the county
Department of Public Health.

``We're looking at treatment facilities that are already licensed and can
develop new programs to meet specific needs,'' she said. ``We're moving as
fast as we can.''

That apparently is the case throughout much of California because the
state's drug and alcohol agency has received only 201 applications to
license new treatment facilities.

Doling out start-up funds

The state has handed out each county's share of the $60 million Proposition
36 allocated for start-up costs.

The measure, known formally as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act
of 2000, also required the state to appropriate $120 million each year for
five years. After that, it will be up to the Legislature to continue
funding if the program proves successful.

Santa Clara County figures it's way ahead of the curve.

Building on its drug court, the county picked the county executive's office
as the lead agency and set up a planning committee with membership from all
the agencies affected, including courts, district attorney, public
defender, department of alcohol and drug services, probation, corrections,
state parole, police chiefs and mental health.

``I think we're far ahead of any county in the state,'' said Superior Court
Judge Stephen V. Manley, who has spearheaded the county's drug court
intervention program. It provided treatment instead of incarceration for
years before Proposition 36 passed, though to a far smaller number.

Studying local approaches

San Diego County, the second most populous in the state, recently sent a
delegation of judges, prosecutors and public defenders to Santa Clara
County to study the drug court approach and the county's plan for
implementing the proposition.

Santa Clara County's initial allocation from the state was $2.27 million,
roughly half the $5 million it will receive each year.

``We have a plan, we have time lines, we have anticipated needs in
treatment and supervision -- we've got that all lined up,'' Manley said.

Drug testing, however, is a sticking point.

``We need more money for testing,'' said Assistant District Attorney Karyn
Sinunu. ``To have effective treatment, you have to have testing.''

Most counties don't have money for testing, so that burden has fallen to
the state.

Burton introduced a bill, SB 223, that allocates $18 million the first year
for counties to provide testing. It gets its first test April 17 in the
Senate's public safety committee. Because it's an urgency measure, it will
require the approval of two-thirds of both legislative houses.

Meeting that challenge

To meet it, the county's steering committee proposes to bring online 200
new outpatient treatment slots, 40 new beds in residential settings and 18
beds in transitional housing units, so-called or Sober Living Environments.

``Don't let those numbers scare you,'' Sinunu said. ``There are going to be
different levels of treatment because there are different levels of
addiction. Not everyone needs intense treatment.''

Most officials agree that nearly three-fourths of those qualifying for
treatment will need only outpatient care with minimum supervision.

Right now, Sober Living Environment houses do not provide treatment and,
therefore, do not qualify under Proposition 36. But Santa Clara and other
counties are looking to get those homes' operators licensed to provide
treatment, which could help expand the system's capacity.

The county's plan goes to the board of supervisors Tuesday.

``We know we're going to need more facilities, but we see these as our
immediate needs,'' said Alice Foster, deputy county executive and
chairwoman of the planning committee.

``We've got to have the plan in final form in May. The biggest pitfall is
going to be funding. If we only provided treatment for those eligible, we
could easily spend the $5 million. That does not speak to case management,
supervision or testing among other requirements.''