IMPLEMENTING PROP. 36 THE HARD PART

Voting In California For Rehab-Only Drug Program Overhaul Was Easy

In California, those engaged in the war on drugs have a new set of rules --
and they've lost one of their most effective tools.

It's no longer a case of crime and punishment; now it's crime and treatment
or crime and rehabilitation. What's missing in the wake of the passage of
Proposition 36 is the hammer that courts and law enforcement have used so
effectively: incarceration.

The initiative forces the state to send first- and second-time drug users
into treatment programs instead of prison or jail. In San Joaquin County,
where the drug court has been something of a state model, it means
confusion about the future and either modification or termination of a
successful program.

What lies ahead is a gigantic shift across California of personnel and
resources. In the months ahead, we'll almost be able to hear the groan as
efforts move away from prisons and into community-based drug-treatment
programs.

Also ahead are huge state budget adjustments as approximately 36,000
California drug users no longer need a prison cell.

The state has the highest number of drug users per capita in the nation,
but must change course by July 1 to implement what is easily the largest
drug-treatment program in U.S. history.

There are obstacles already.

One week after the California vote (61 percent of us backed the measure),
proponents were urging Gov. Gray Davis to release the first phase of
funding required by the measure. The seed money is designed to create,
expand and license enough treatment providers to handle the flood of
eligible individuals.

In a letter that can only be described as impatient, Bill Zimmerman,
executive director of the California Campaign for New Drug Policies, said
two steps were required by the proposition, presumably right after its passage:

* Creation of a new Substance Abuse Treatment Trust Fund.

* The transfer of $60 million from the General Fund to the treatment fund,
which will be administered by the California Department of Alcohol and Drug
Programs.

We're less concerned about the timing of those two steps than what happens
next. It's too late to decry the out-of-state support this measure received
or the way it will decriminalize certain hard-core drugs.

What must happen now is every county in California has to find a way to
comply by next summer. We suspect $60 million won't be enough now or in the
future.

Eventually, the cost of running the prison system is supposed to drop. That
would free up financing for what is sure to be a complex and confusing
system for a while.

There are two models worth looking at, although neither is on the scale for
what California must undertake.

San Francisco has gone against the statewide trend for years, diverting
nonviolent drug offenders into treatment programs. However, after five
years, S.F. doesn't have enough slots for about 6,000 cases annually.

The San Francisco Chronicle recorded voices of worry:

"The danger is to jump in quickly, to make assumptions -- that their
problems are solved," says Mimi Silbert, president and CEO of the nation's
largest private program, the Delancey Street Foundation.

"You will have spectacular failures, and you can't scuttle your approach
because of those failures," says Michael Hennessey, San Francisco sheriff.

The other model is the state of Arizona, where drug-treatment programs --
minus that hammer of imprisonment -- have turned instead to an aggressive
incentive program. The results remain mixed on the effectiveness of rewards.

Barnett Lotstein, special assistant district attorney in Arizona's Maricopa
County, laments that 25 percent of those sentenced to probation are
"walking away" from treatment.

Even with its successes, Arizona's program, voted in four years ago, only
meant finding room for 4,000 nonviolent drug offenders.

Nothing has ever been attempted on the magnitude of California's current
effort.

We can only hope that the rush to implementation will not create more
problems than it solves. We also trust that there will be sufficient
oversight to compare a declining prison population with rising numbers in
drug-treatment programs. It's doubtful the $120 million a year allocated
through Proposition 36 will be enough to pay for this monumental shift, but
surely this will be cheaper than incarceration and prison construction.

While initiative proponents push Davis to act on funding, they and all
Californians should be pleased that shortly after Proposition 36's passage
he did finally appoint a director to the state alcohol and drug agency. A
week before the vote and two years into Davis' term, there was no director.

The overall program's chances of success may be doubtful, but we hope that
its implementation of the people's will on drug treatment moves more
quickly than Davis on appointments.