PROPOSITION 36? MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS

Between now and the end of June, some $60 million dollars in drug treatment
funds promised by Proposition 36 are supposed to be dispensed. Over the
next 5 1/2 years, the state is required to spend another $660 million to
treat and monitor addicts who will be diverted from jail and prisons under
the initiative.

As evidenced by a recent Sacramento workshop sponsored by the treatment
advocates who put Proposition 36 on the ballot, it's clear that those
responsible for implementing the revolutionary new law are unclear about
how to proceed. They need guidance and leadership. The governor and state
Legislature must provide it and soon.

The questions are basic. For example, which county agencies will receive
the treatment money from the state -- probation departments, alcohol and
drug program administrators or county supervisors? What formulas will be
used to distribute funds? Who decides, the Legislature or the state
Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs?

The proposition requires the state to evaluate the measure's effectiveness
- -- but what constitutes success, and how is it measured? Is it the number
of addicts who successfully complete a drug program or the number of
addicts who test clean for drugs? Since the initiative explicitly states
that Proposition 36 funds cannot be used for testing, who pays for that?
Nobody knows.

How can understaffed county probation departments, already struggling to
supervise large numbers of probationers, add thousands of new drug
offenders to their caseloads? Isn't there a danger that treatment money
will be eaten up by probation department monitoring efforts?

The conference exposed tensions between law enforcement officials, who
opposed the measure and want more testing and strict accountablity, and
treatment providers, who supported the measure and argued stongly that all
the funds ought to go to them. But even within the treatment community,
disagreements abound. A debate emerged about what treatment is and who is
qualified to dispense it. Will faith-based treatment programs receive any
funds? During the sessions, treatment providers squabbled over the causes
of addiction. Is it hereditary or is it learned behavior?

In his luncheon address to the 750 treatment professionals, public
defenders, district attorneys and politicians who attended the conference,
Attorney General Bill Lockyer articulated the one unassailable truth about
the new measure: "You'll find it's a lot easier to write a law than to
administer it."

Yet California must administer it. The task seems daunting, but no one can
afford to walk away from this challenge and this opportunity.