PROP. 36 MAY GIVE COUNTY, COURTS A TOUGH CHALLENGE

Drug Treatment Idea Certain To Be Costly

A week after voters resoundingly approved a sweeping change in California
drug policy, court and county officials are beginning to piece together the
new procedures called for in Proposition 36.

They say it will not be an easy task.

Proposition 36 requires treatment and probation instead of incarceration
for people arrested for nonviolent drug possession offenses. It calls for
spending $120 million per year to treat these offenders.

Yet the money to be doled out to California's 58 counties likely will not
be enough to implement everything the measure calls for, according to
interviews with court and law enforcement officials.

The measure will create a demand for more probation officers and staff as
well as more capacity in drug treatment centers to handle an expected
influx of new cases, but exactly how much will ultimately be needed is not
yet known.

The measure will not take effect until July 1, 2001. That time lag should
help officials who say there is much to be done to prepare for the changes
in how thousands of drug offenders are handled in the criminal justice system.

Estimates before the election were that between 25,000 and 37,000 people
arrested statewide each year would be sent to treatment instead of prison
when the measure becomes effective.

The proposition calls for treatment for drug possession crimes only.
Someone who is charged with another crime -- such as resisting arrest --
would not be eligible.

Parolees arrested for drug possession also are eligible for treatment,
provided they do not have a conviction for a violent or serious felony.
Previously, parolees arrested for drug violations could be sent back to
state prison.

Financial challenge

Finding enough money, staff and space in treatment facilities to handle
these cases is the challenge facing court officials.

"One of the concerns we have is that the $120 million will not be nearly
enough," said Vista Superior Court Judge David Ryan. He was virtually alone
among his colleagues in defending the proposition. Ryan serves on a
statewide judicial panel that will draw up guidelines for judges on how to
apply Proposition 36.

San Diego's share of the $120 million is unclear. The presiding judge of
the Superior Court, Wayne Peterson, estimated that the county could receive
as much as $10 million per year.

Alan Crogan, San Diego County's chief probation officer and a vigorous
opponent of the measure, said his staff estimates that 4,200 new cases will
require probation supervision in the first three years the measure is
effective.

"Right now I don't have the (staff) capacity to handle that," Crogan said.

Preliminary estimates from a study done by Crogan's staff show he may need
to add as many as 80 new probation officers over the next three years, he said.

Money also will have to be found to pay for drug testing for the thousands
of new drug offenders in treatment, experts said. The measure specifically
prohibits using any of the $120 million in treatment funds to test drug
offenders.

Last week, proponents of the measure said they were aware more money would
be needed. Bill Zimmerman, executive director of the California Campaign
for new Drug Policies and the leader of the initiative, said the strong
vote in favor of the proposition could provide leverage with the state
Legislature. Voters approved the measure 61 percent to 39 percent.

"We don't think it will be difficult to go to the Legislature and say we
need some supplemental funding to make this work," said Zimmerman. "I'm
sure every elected official in the state will want to stand with the 61 and
not the 39, and get this implemented."

Treatment capacity

Another big-ticket portion of the measure has to do with providing
treatment for new offenders, most of whom will likely be placed in an
outpatient program instead of a residential treatment program.

Yet that could pose a problem, said Al Medina, director of Alcohol and Drug
Services for San Diego County.

"One of the issues we are facing is there is not enough treatment capacity
in these existing programs," Medina said.

Mike Franz, deputy director of the McAlister Institute for Treatment and
Education -- which provides outpatient and residential drug treatment in
the county -- agreed.

"There will definitely have to be an expansion of services, no doubt,"
Franz said, but he doesn't know how much. "We'll need more treatment slots,
more counselors."

Although the measure was opposed by virtually all of the criminal justice
system -- from prosecutors to probation officers to judges -- those same
people will now have to work to implement it. Despite any such
reservations, District Attorney Paul Pfingst said his office will enforce
the spirit of the measure.

"That means there is going to be a strong commitment to drug rehabilitation
instead of incarceration," he said. "We are going to do everything we can
within the criminal justice system to use treatment as aggressively as
possible . . . We are going to implement what voters wanted. We will not be
reluctant partners."

Previously, treatment options were available to drug offenders through
diversion programs and -- for a select number -- under the county's four
drug courts. Those courts will continue to operate, said Judge Peterson,
likely taking drug offenders who would not qualify for treatment under
Proposition 36.

'Huge mess'

Narcotics investigators at San Diego County police agencies decried the
proposition, but said it would have little impact on them.

"It's a huge mess," said Capt. Larry Moratto, commanding officer of
narcotics and gang investigators for the San Diego Police Department, "but
it's not going to change how we will be doing drug investigations, or how
we do arrests.

"All Prop. 36 has to do with is what happens afterward."

Much still needs to be hammered out, court, county and probation officials
agreed.

Beginning January 1, $60 million will be available statewide for counties
to "ramp up" staff and treatment programs, Medina said, leaving counties
six more months to prepare for the full implementation of the
groundbreaking law.

Staff writer Mark Arner contributed to this report.