THE BIG FIX

Implementing Drug Treatment Faces Hurdles

Ballot initiatives are voters' dreams thrown into the laps of government
employees. They rarely turn out the way people envision because, no matter
how detailed, initiatives are only concepts, not public programs. Counties
throughout California are now struggling to bring Proposition 36, the
initiative favoring treatment rather than imprisonment for drug-addicted
criminals, into the realm of reality by July 1.

The state has set up loose guidelines, but mostly left it up to each county
to figure out how to provide treatment to nonviolent, drug-abusing
offenders, as the proposition mandates.

One constant for all 58 counties is that first-and second-time offenders
cannot be sent to jail, although very few of them ever were. In the past,
those drug abusers often were released with nothing more than a citation.
Now, they'll be sent to court-ordered drug treatment or education. Many
might yearn for the old days.

Although plans aren't final yet, the differences between counties could be
significant. Santa Clara County, for example, is leaning toward spending
all its Proposition 36 money -- $60 million divided among all counties --
on treatment and little on supervising offenders. San Diego County will
spend much of its start-up money on hiring new probation officers and
addiction specialists to case manage the estimated 5,000 to 6,000 new
offenders under Proposition 36. New treatment beds and outpatient treatment
slots will be paid for with the local share of the $120 million ongoing
annual funding.

The biggest differences between counties will be how much offenders are
supervised. In Santa Clara County, a judge may send a Proposition 36
offender to outpatient treatment, then leave it up to treatment counselors
to send reports back to the court. In San Diego County, a probation officer
and an addiction specialist might closely monitor the offender, depending
on his level of addiction and criminal history. Other differences will
include how rigorously substance abusers are assessed regarding their drug
problems, and how often they'll be drug tested.

What's the state's job? It will study how well each county is doing and
make recommendations. Counties that don't significantly assess, monitor and
provide treatment for substance abusers won't be successful in reducing
crime caused by addicts.

Two serious pitfalls lie ahead, warns Kathryn Jett, director of the
California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. One is the severe
statewide shortage of drug counselors to work in the expanding treatment
field. These near-minimum-wage jobs, which require a certificate, not a
college degree, are usually held by people with a deep commitment to
recovery -- often recovering addicts themselves. Jett fears the state
Legislature might demand more training for counselors, thus exacerbating
the shortage.

The other pitfall is NIMBYism. Although 61 percent of voters supported
Proposition 36, which mandates community-based treatment, people don't want
treatment centers in their neighborhood. Jett suggested that law
enforcement, criminal justice and other public officials need to promote
the necessity of treatment centers. If angry neighbors, and politicians
pandering to them, can kill treatment programs, the vision of treating
addicted offenders to prevent them from becoming serious criminals will
never work. Such NIMBYism is already afoot in San Diego County.