DRUG MEASURE A CHALLENGE TO CARRY OUT

Local, State Officials Study How To Make Prop. 36 Work

SACRAMENTO -- In November, for the first time in decades, Californians
voted to reduce rather than increase criminal sentences by passing a
measure that diverts most drug users from jail to treatment.

Now comes the difficult part: implementing Proposition 36.

It's not going to be easy to direct a revolution in the criminal justice
system, said law enforcement officials, government leaders and treatment
providers who met yesterday.

Between now and July, when the measure takes effect, local and state
officials will be scrambling to devise a way to evaluate the treatment
needs of addicts, license treatment facilities, expand rehabilitation
programs and come up with new money for drug testing.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Jerome Nadler said the large vote
in favor of Proposition 36, which passed 61 percent to 39 percent, shows
the public has a new opinion of addiction. Voters once believed it was
primarily a criminal justice issue, but now they view it as chiefly a
medical problem.

"It will be difficult for many in the justice system to accept this new
approach," he said.

Nadler warned against setting expectations too high.

He predicted that 50 percent of those covered by Proposition 36 would fail
for the same reason they fail now -- they aren't ready for rehabilitation.

The measure diverts from jail to treatment those convicted of drug use for
the first and second time, as well as parole violators. For subsequent
convictions, it shortens sentences to 30 days. The law, however, allows
judges to sentence those who violate probation repeatedly, to up to three
years.

The proposition doesn't apply to those convicted of selling drugs.

Proposition 36 allocates $120 million a year to the counties, but it
doesn't say which county agency gets to decide how to spend the money among
treatment, probation and court monitoring.

The Legislative Analyst's Office has recommended that the Legislature
dedicate a lead agency to make such decisions.

Already, a funding fight seemed to be brewing among probation departments
that will be charged with monitoring more offenders and treatment providers
with new responsibilities to rehabilitate more addicts.

"Probation has been historically underfunded," said Dennis Handis,
executive director of the Chief Probation Officers Association of
California. "We have a major concern about caseload growth without the
resources."

But Gregory Senegal, vice president of the Walden House Inc., a treatment
center in San Francisco, said the vast majority of funds should go to
rehabilitation. "Treatment providers are ultimately going to have to deal
with the situation," he said.

Counties also have to decide how to integrate existing drug courts and
treatment programs with Proposition 36.

San Diego County is planning a super drug court that would continue current
programs and a new court for those who qualify for treatment under
Proposition 36, said Lori Koster, coordinating deputy district attorney for
drug courts.

"It will offer a continuum of treatment," she said.

Drug counselors urged the state to come up with more stringent standards
for licensing new treatment facilities.

The responsibility for licensing rests with the state Department of Alcohol
and Drug Programs, which had been without a director for nearly two years
until Gov. Gray Davis appointed one last month.

Licensing standards are minimal, almost nonexistent, said Tim Sinnott,
president of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors.

For example, he said, there are no tests or educational requirements for
those who operate a residential treatment facility, which could invite
unscrupulous operators into the field.

"Things like this need to change," he said.

Maria Caudill, spokeswoman for the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs,
said while there are no exams, department officials inspect facilities,
look at their treatment plans and review qualifications of their leaders.

Lawmakers are likely to introduce bills to pay for drug testing, which was
left out of the funds provided by the ballot measure, officials said.

The Legislative Analyst's Office recommended boosting funding by requiring
offenders to pay part of the costs of probation and testing and by tapping
into Medi-Cal or CalWORKS, the state welfare reform program. Both programs
get substantial funding from the federal government.

One speaker, Gary Jaeger, president of the California Society of Addiction
Medicine, said the private sector should also help pay. He said his
organization backed legislation requiring HMOs and insurers to pay the cost
of treating addiction, which he called a disease.