INLAND AGENCIES TO ADD DRUG TREATMENT

Few can match Michael Brady's credentials as the state's go-to guy for
implementing Prop. 36, the groundbreaking drug-treatment measure that
becomes law July 1.

Few would want to.

Cocaine and alcohol destroyed a criminal-law practice that may never be
salvaged. He's been behind bars. He still could be disbarred.

But Brady's troubled past brings credibility to his job as Senate President
Pro Tem John Burton's special envoy to California counties struggling to
meet the mandate of Prop. 36, which treats first- and second-time offenders
as patients.

As a combination trouble-shooter and cheerleader, Brady speaks the language
of judges, lawyers and probation officers but also knows the ins and outs
of drug addiction and rehabilitation.

So when he gives the Inland Empire's planning efforts high marks, it means
something. When he says Prop. 36 is under-funded, people listen.

"Riverside is ahead of the learning curve and they're fine-tuning their
program," Brady said.

He also has kept in touch with San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge
Patrick Morris, a nationally recognized drug court pioneer, and sees Prop.
36 meshing well with existing treatment programs there.

Drug courts emphasize recovery over punishment, and that's the philosophy
behind Prop. 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, but
on a much larger scale.

The five-year, $560 million plan could divert as many as 24,000 drug
offenders a year from state prison to treatment, state officials estimate.
Tens of thousands more would avoid county jail, Brady said.

The initiative passed last November by a 61 percent voter margin, despite
opposition from prosecutors and judges who called it poorly drafted and too
soft on crime. They now say they are committed to Prop. 36.

"We have a duty to do our best to make it work," said Roberta McPeters,
presiding judge of San Bernardino County Superior Court. "We all have a
goal of getting people through treatment as quickly as possible."

Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask said, "Obviously, it is in
our best interest for anyone to get off drugs and become a productive
member of our community.".

Brady realizes that Prop. 36 needs more than good intentions to succeed.

"The biggest hurdle to cross is the money issue," he said.

Throughout the state, officials agree that the state's $120 million annual
allocation for all 58 counties won't be enough. Inland probation
departments already stretched to the limit now must monitor misdemeanor
cases to make sure offenders stick with treatment programs.

Drug testing, which experts say is a key rehabilitation component, was not
funded by the initiative. Judge Morris called that a "fatal flaw" that
partially prompted his opposition to Prop. 36. "Without testing, we're
flying blind," he said.

San Francisco Democrats' urgency bill to provide $18 million in state
drug-test funds was approved last week by the Senate Public Safety
Committee and should pass through the Legislature to the governor's desk by
mid-May, Brady said.

No one is counting on that money just yet, however.

Frank Lewis, substance-abuse program manager for Riverside County's
Department of Mental Health, fears new issues, such as the energy crisis,
could drain funds for new programs, including drug testing.

While Gov. Davis recently earmarked $11.9 million in federal block-grant
money for drug testing, he diverted that money from treatment programs,
said Gary Morris, administrative analyst for San Bernardino County's Human
Services System. He assumes additional state money for drug testing won't
be available come July 1.

Lewis' department is Riverside County's lead agency in implementing Prop.
36. The county roughly estimates 3,500 cases per year under Prop. 36, which
would require expansion of treatment centers already serving the court and
construction of new ones, Lewis said.

Morris' department, which oversees local treatment programs, is San
Bernardino County's lead agency for Prop. 36.

Morris said his county is preparing for at least 6,000 Prop. 36 cases in
the first year, a majority of them outpatients.

"I think we can accommodate all of the new outpatient people within the
current system," he said. "As far as residential beds are concerned, we can
accommodate about three-quarters of the new cases by existing providers."

T. Maria Caudill, spokeswoman for the California Department of Alcohol and
Drug Programs, said the state is processing 232 applications for new
treatment centers, including 15 in San Bernardino County and four in
Riverside County.

A major function of her department, she said, is to erase the stigma
attached to such centers.

"Communities are unsure about facilities in their neighborhood but this is
going to enhance public safety," Caudill said.

Many existing programs are committed to expanding their capacity, she said.

Tinya Holt, executive director of Perris Valley Recovery Programs, already
accepts drug-diversion cases from Riverside County Superior Court and is
willing to take on the new Prop. 36 caseload.

"As a provider, I do support drug treatment, giving people the option of
receiving drug treatment services instead of incarceration," she said.

Eugene Hughes, director of Sun Ray Addiction Counseling and Education in
Hemet, also is eager to help with outpatient care.

Holt and Hughes, however, acknowledged some confusion among treatment
providers when it comes to Prop. 36, because they have yet to get much
guidance from local government.

That will come once the counties complete their formal implementation plans
in the coming weeks and put out formal requests for treatment services,
according to county officials.

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Richard Fields, who handles the bulk
of drug cases in Riverside's Hall of Justice, said Riverside County
officials already agree that nonviolent drug offenders must be screened in
court and referred immediately to treatment programs so people do not slip
through the cracks.

"We're all concerned if you let them go for a week or two or three, you may
never see them again," Fields said.

Raymond B. Wingerd, chief probation officer for San Bernardino County, said
he, too, would like some sort of on-site assessment and referral process,
but that will take more staff. His latest calculations call for 30 new
hires in the probation department.

Since treatment costs alone would eat up San Bernardino County's $5.4
million annual Prop. 36 allocation, officials are hoping for other funding
sources, Gary Morris said.

CalWORKs, the state's welfare reform program, pays for substance abuse
treatment, he said, so that could be one source, along with private insurance.

Brady remains optimistic that funding problems will be ironed out, the new
law will fly and the state will save in prison costs far more than it
spends on Prop. 36. So far, the only resistance to implementation is coming
from Kern County and a few other rural areas, he said.

"Frankly, I believe this proposition will work and when it does, this will
part of a national trend," he said.