STATE SHOULD PAY COUNTIES BACK FOR COSTS OF PROP. 36

Proposition 36, passed by the voters last November, marks a major change in
the way California treats illegal drug use. But to work properly, the new
system will undoubtedly require more money than the measure allocated,
making it a huge challenge for California counties.

In all likelihood, the state will have to step in with extra funding,
otherwise the program will become another case of good intentions undercut
by poor implementation.

Proposition 36 moves those charged with drug possession or use from the
prison system to drug treatment programs. The basic idea is sound: Putting
people in jail for their drug habits doesn't solve the underlying problem
of addiction. Giving such people treatment to overcome the addiction
removes the problem, thus saving money by reducing the need for prosecution
and prison space. The state will spend $60 million for this fiscal year and
$120 million a year after that into a trust fund that will pay for
substance abuse treatment.

Counties, however, find themselves wondering just how they'll make ends
meet on that amount. Consider San Bernardino County's situation, for
example. It will receive $2.8 million this year and about $5.7 million
annually after that to cover the costs of the new law.

In the last fiscal year, the county spent nearly $8.9 million on its drug
treatment programs, which had about 3,000 people in them at any given
moment. The county expects the new law to double the number of people in
its drug treatment programs, which will increase the cost substantially.

Add to that the increased costs to the Probation Department, which will
have to oversee the people in this new diversion program. Probation
departments are routinely stretched too thin already, so new duties will
require more probation officers, which gets expensive.

Then there's the cost for the prosecutors and public defenders needed for
the additional hearings that may take place under the new law. Offenders
can come back to court several times under Proposition 36 - for failure to
follow the treatment program, to move to a different course of treatment or
to petition for the dismissal of charges after successfully completing the
program.

Altogether, the new program could cost the county as much as $20 million a
year - far less than it will get from the state.

Ironically, the county probably won't even save that much on jail expenses,
since it will still have to book those arrested and hold them until their
cases can be decided or they're diverted into treatment programs. The real
savings will come in the state prison system, which could potentially
reduce its costs because it would be handling fewer inmates.

If there isn't enough money, though, counties will have to cut corners
somewhere, and the new law's effectiveness will suffer.

So it makes sense that if the state reaps big savings, it ought to forward
that money to the local governments charged with making the program work.
Even the soundest policy won't do much good if the parts necessary to make
it function aren't put in place - and that could happen if the funding
isn't there.