TREATMENT INITIATIVE 'COMPLEX'

Prop. 36: Measure Would Trade Jail For Recovery Homes In Drug Convictions.

Everyone agrees they're a vital thread in the social fabric, but few people
want a drug and alcohol recovery house as part of their neighborhood.

Sponsors of an initiative that would mandate treatment instead of jail or
prison for non-violent, first- or second-time drug offenders easily
qualified the issue for the ballot in November's general election. The
issue's passage could divert up to 37,000 people from jails and prisons each
year -- dramatically increasing the number of recovery houses needed
throughout the state.

Under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000,
California by law would view drug offenses more as disease than as crime,
and a lot more recovery houses would find their way to suburbia's back
yards.

Even prosecutors predisposed to throw the book at offenders concede that
jails alone can't work, that treatment is necessary and enjoys broad support
among citizens. Santa Clara County, meanwhile, has led the way in
alleviating neighborhood fears by certifying the growing number of treatment
homes.

But the prospect is unsettling in communities like South San Jose, where
relatively low real estate costs mean residents already are sharing their
streets with more than their share of treatment homes. And the measure
troubles many prosecutors and judges who fear they could lose the stick --
jail -- in a proven carrot-and-stick approach to curbing drug abuse and
crime.

The proposition's backers claim it will mesh seamlessly with California's
drug treatment courts. Not everyone is so sure.

California has one of the most comprehensive drug-court systems in the
country -- a system that already provides treatment, and one that judges and
prosecutors say would change radically if treatment were mandated rather
than an option. The measure effectively would decriminalize drug and alcohol
crimes by taking away the ability of judges to sentence offenders to jail
time.

``It's a complex initiative,'' Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge
Stephen V. Manley said -- one that would take discretion away from judges.
``What we have learned is that treatment only works where there is strict
accountability on the part of the individual.''

Participation in drug court involves immediate sanctions, mandatory drug
testing, frequent appearances before the same judge and close supervision
over that person's activities, Manley pointed out.

The initiative, he said, does not follow the drug court model.

Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the nation's drug czar, has panned the initiative. So
has the state's powerful prison guards' union. Of the state's 58 district
attorneys, only one, San Francisco's Terence Hallinan, has endorsed it. But
there is a growing sentiment even among prosecutors that jail or prison
alone is not the answer.

``People have to be afforded treatment. Even if the initiative doesn't pass,
this is what people want,'' said Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu.
``We're going to have to increase treatment, and all of us are going to be
living near treatment facilities.''

While prosecutors aren't yet endorsing this particular initiative, they are
recognizing the potential that treatment has to interrupt the destructive
cycle of drug use, crime, jail, prison and back to drug use.

In the vanguard of this potentially seismic societal shift, Santa Clara
County has blazed a trail in the rehab business with a program that could
become a model for the state and the nation.

Three years ago, District Attorney George Kennedy set up a certification
program for neighborhood recovery homes -- the first in the nation. The
county sees it as a way to provide a safe environment for the community and
the valley's rising population of addicts, even as it encourages sobriety.

But that program has certified only 71 homes in Santa Clara County, a much
smaller scale than the state will need if the initiative passes. Law
enforcement believes the ballot measure will put incredible pressure on
local communities to accept new treatment and recovery homes.

How many?

``It would be a hell of a lot, I can tell you that,'' said David Byers, who
investigates these places for the district attorney's certification program.
``I don't think we'd be able to fill the need.''

The onus of providing these houses also will fall disproportionately on
those few cities that already bear the biggest burden, particularly in the
Bay Area, where cost of housing has mushroomed. The operator of one group of
homes said the average rent he pays for a four-bedroom house has ballooned
from $1,700 a month to $2,700 a month over the past few years.

San Jose is home to more than 80 percent of the drug and alcohol houses in
Santa Clara County, and it probably would feel the brunt of any new
initiative.

But growth of the drug culture also has spurred demand for jail and prison
cells.

``We're spending on the order of $350 million a year on prisons.'' said Dave
Fratello, spokesman for California Campaign for New Drug Policies, which is
sponsoring the drug diversion initiative. ``It's remarkable when you look at
these numbers.''

The measure is bankrolled by three wealthy philanthropists, who have also
supported medicinal marijuana propositions in the past. They are George
Soros, the multibillionaire financier from New York City; John Sperling of
Phoenix, chairman of the University of Phoenix; and Peter Lewis of
Cleveland, chairman of Progressive Insurance.

The same group, with the blessing of former U.S. Sen. Dennis DeConcini and
the now-deceased Sen. Barry Goldwater, passed a similar measure in Arizona
in 1996, with a popular vote margin of 65 percent to 35 percent.

In June, in the first polling of California residents on the proposed
initiative, the measure was running ahead 64 percent to 20 percent. Also in
June, the state of New York launched a statewide drug diversion program
closely resembling the one proposed by Proposition 36.

The initiative would appropriate $120 million a year from California's
general fund to pay for the treatment programs, but houses and programs
would remain subject to local zoning and other regulations.

The measure generally would mandate that judges put non-violent drug
offenders in treatment instead of jail or prison -- but not if they
committed another crime, such as use of a firearm, at the same time as the
drug offense.

Diversion would also apply to parolees who test positive for drugs or who
are arrested on a simple drug charge that doesn't involve supplying drugs to
minors. Two-thirds of all parolees are sent back to prison for drug
offenses, Fratello said. But this doesn't take into account, as one
California official pointed out, that in many cases these addicts were
arrested first for serious felonies and were on parole when they committed
the drug offense.

Under the proposition, if abusers complete treatment, they could ask a judge
to have a felony drug offense cleared from their record. That's the carrot
to keep them clean, he said.

The initiative could make it unnecessary to build one of two prisons
California otherwise would need by 2003, Fratello said, at a savings of
about $500 million.

``It's virtually standing room only in our prison system now,'' Nathan
Barankin, spokesman for State Attorney General William Lockyer agreed.
``Drug treatment as a general matter is a smart investment. Those who
participate have a much lower recidivism rate than inmates that don't.'' But
he also noted that people arrested for simple possession usually go to jail,
not prison.

Judge Manley differs sharply with the proposition.

``Drug courts work,'' he said, ``because they combine accountability with
treatment.''