DRUG TREATMENT MEASURE WOULD NEED `CLEANUP' BILL

'It's All Doable': But Supporters Acknowledge There Would Need To Be
Legislation Providing For Evaluation, Licensing And Staffing.

Proposition 36, which would reshape the face of drug enforcement and
treatment in California, has serious flaws that even its staunchest
supporters say would require a bipartisan political renovation to make
work, if it passes.

The initiative, bankrolled by three wealthy out-of-state men who are trying
to change the way the nation's criminal justice system handles the drug
crisis, would mandate treatment instead of jail or prison for non-violent
first-or second-time offenders -- some 37,000 people a year.

In its latest poll, released Thursday, the Field Institute found that since
early October, public support for the proposition has remained static at 50
percent, while the number opposed has grown from 28 percent to 34 percent
and the number now aware of it has nearly tripled from 20 percent to 57
percent.

The measure, which goes before voters Tuesday, appropriates $120 million a
year from the state general fund to finance treatment. But critics, some
supporters and a major think-tank study say that amount is vastly
insufficient because the proposition does not address allied costs such as
probation, testing of addicts and licensing of care facilities.

The cost of testing is estimated at $40 million a year, while expanding
probation departments would take another $40 million to $50 million a year,
according to Superior Court Judge Stephen V. Manley, chief of Santa Clara
County's drug treatment court and one of the measure's most vociferous critics.

Treatment centers full

A 1999 study by the state Legislative Analyst's Office found California's
treatment capacity inadequate even without the potential increased caseload
under Proposition 36. The shortfall in funding is $330 million, the study
said. In addition, there are thousands of clients on waiting lists at
treatment centers every day.

"There would be a period of chaos," if the measure passed, agreed Dave
McCullough, director of training for the California Association of
Addiction Recovery Resources, whose programs are not ready for the influx
of clients.

"We in the field dealing with addicts on a daily basis feel that the
population affected by the proposition really isn't much interested in
recovery," he added.

What's more, the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, which
presumably would implement the proposition if it passes, is not staffed,
authorized or funded to accomplish many of the functions it would have to
assume, said Bill Demers, president of the County Alcohol and Drug Program
Administrators Association, which supports the proposition.

Demers said there are additional flaws in the measure that would require
fixing in a "cleanup" bill. The problem is that any revision of an
initiative requires two-thirds approval of the Assembly and Senate and the
signature of Gov. Gray Davis, who announced his opposition to the
proposition Wednesday.

"It's all doable," said Demers. But he acknowledged the cleanup-bill
process is a tall mountain to climb, since his group has tried, and failed,
to get legislators to work with them on drug solutions in the past.

"We think Proposition 36 ought to pass," he said, "and if it does, state
government has to step forward and make it work."

Among the problems, Demers said:

The initiative requires annual evaluation of its effectiveness and funding,
but there is no infrastructure, including computers and software, to do the
data collection.

It calls for licensing and certification of programs, but the state agency
has authority to license and certify residential facilities, not group
homes and outpatient clinics, the expected backbone of treatment under
Proposition 36.

Staff members needed to license and certify programs, including those run
by the counties, will have to grow dramatically -- at a commensurate cost.

The proposition pretty much prohibits jail time for those who fail
treatment, but Demers said some kind of sanction short of jail is needed to
keep people focused on treatment.

DAs, judges opposed

The measure has split the criminal justice and health care communities,
with most district attorneys and judges opposed and many health and
treatment agencies in favor.

"Every day there are 160 to 170 people on my list waiting for residential
treatment," said Charles Deutchman, director of drug and alcohol programs
for Contra Costa County, who favors the measure. "It borders on the immoral
to say, 'I know you want treatment, but I cannot give it to you.' "

A significant portion of the treatment industry is opposed, however,
because it believes the measure will not interrupt the spiral that leads
from use to addiction and -- for many -- to crime. It objects also to the
fact that three-fourths of the limited funding will have to go for
outpatient services instead of more effective -- and costly -- residential
treatment.

No one can say for sure what impact passage will have on the drug treatment
courts, which both sides agree are effective and desirable but only reach
about 5 percent of offenders.

In his attack on the proposition's treatment-only requirement, Judge Manley
noted: "There is no known treatment for methamphetamine, and meth is the
drug of choice of the majority of people at the present time."

If they are to beat drugs, he said, there must be a threat of incarceration
and addicts must be supervised. They won't be because the proposition
doesn't provide the funds, he said.

"If 36 becomes law, drug courts will adapt," countered Dave Fratello,
director of the Yes on 36 campaign. "Far from being displaced, they will grow."

Contact Ed Pope at epope@sjmercury.com or (408) 920-5641.