PROP. 36 PROVING COSTLY

Funding Woes Hurt Drug Treatment Programs

In November 2000, Californians passed Proposition 36 and shifted the direction
of drug laws: They voted to put non-violent drug offenders into treatment
rather than behind bars.

Though it's difficult to gauge the effectiveness of that shift this early, a
recent analysis suggests that the treatment mandated by Proposition 36 is
costing more than some counties expected, and at a time when they can least
afford it.

Santa Clara County, for example, spent about $1 million more for Proposition 36
drug treatment than the state's $4.5 million Proposition 36 allotment in its
first year.

"We can't treat everybody who's eligible with the resources from Prop. 36,"
said Sally Logothetti, who heads the program for the county executive's office.

Generally, Proposition 36 allows people who possess or use illegal drugs but
don't commit violent crimes to choose drug treatment over jail. After an
assessment, they can be put in outpatient or residential treatment.

Offenders are supervised by probation officers and can violate the terms of
their treatment twice; judges may send them to jail only after a third
violation. Ideally, the law will reduce jail costs, reform addicts and cut
crime.

But the success of the law could be undermined as cash-strapped counties slash
support programs and as waiting lists for drug treatment grow longer, advocates
fear.

Santa Clara County started with a range of programs to keep people on track --
from bus passes to help addicts make it to treatment to a weeklong job-training
program. In June, those programs were cut.

"The first year we had all these services," said Robert Garner, director of
county alcohol and drug services, "and it became obvious we would run out of
money."

Officials in San Mateo County say they also are running out of Proposition 36
funds and will present a plan Monday that redesigns the county's treatment
program to save money.

Yvonne Frazier, alcohol and drug administrator for San Mateo County, knows how
difficult it is to keep addicts on track.

"It's like you have the potential to lose people at every step," Frazier said.
"Who would be surprised they lose their appointment slip? They have an active
addiction."

Because each county administers its own program to meet Proposition 36, the
extent of the problem varies. While some counties are more conservative about
such spending, others are hurting. Last month, Orange County officials said
they were losing $6 million a year handling Proposition 36 cases.

UCLA Report's Findings

An analysis compiled last month by the University of California-Los Angeles
provides the first glimpse of the impact statewide -- and reveals a set of
factors that ramped up treatment costs:

* The addicts treated under Proposition 36 have used drugs for longer and have
a greater level of addiction than experts anticipated. Therefore, they require
more extensive treatment.

* They are addicted to more dangerous drugs than expected. Methamphetamine, for
example, which requires more extensive treatment than many addictions, is the
most prevalent drug in the program statewide, and in Santa Clara and San Mateo
counties.

* Most are entering treatment for the first time.

By law, each county gets an annual allocation -- based on its population and
the number of drug arrests and people in treatment -- from about $120 million
of state money.

"We set out $120 million with the expectation that it would be enough to cover
treatment," said Daniel Abrahamson, director of legal affairs for the Drug
Policy Alliance. He co-wrote Proposition 36. "But I'll be the first to admit we
don't have any final answers on that."

Proponents stress that treatment is an investment in which the benefits --
decreased prison population, reduced health care and social-service costs --
are reaped over many years.

Abrahamson believes the long-term effects are coming. "A disproportionate
number of people are coming into Proposition 36 with long drug-use histories,"
he said. "Over time, I think you're going to see those numbers fall because
that population will have gotten treatment."

Among other things, Santa Clara County's allocation pays for 21 residential
beds and 404 outpatient treatment slots.

In the first year, judges sentenced 2,781 people under Proposition 36. In the
second year, which ended in June, the number was 2,190.

Whether those numbers continue to decline remains to be seen. Some repeat
offenders will use up their chances and land in jail, but new addicts will
emerge. Addicts now in the juvenile system could land in drug court once they
turn 18.

Many of the heavy drug users whom the courts send to treatment in Santa Clara
County spend time at Treatment Options, a residential center on a block of
time-worn fourplexes in East San Jose.

Program director Peggy Simms oversees as many as 42 addicts in intensive
treatment.

Her roll call shows the far reach of Proposition 36. While only two of the
spaces are funded by the county's state allocation, 23 of the residents this
month are there because of the law.

Residential treatment -- often required to handle more serious addictions such
as methamphetamine -- adds to the cost. Residential spaces can cost 10 times as
much as outpatient treatment.

Statewide, about 10 percent of clients in the first year entered residential
treatment. In Santa Clara County, the number was almost 23 percent.

Judge Oversees Program

Officials say residential programs help ensure success.

"If you have a client who's relapsing and using daily, if you can't move that
client into a residential treatment program, that client's going to be
rearrested," Judge Stephen Manley said. "It's just a matter of how many days."

Manley oversees the county's drug court program, which hears most Proposition
36 cases. Drug court, which has been in place since 1998 and predates
Proposition 36, shares a basic principle with the proposition: It places many
drug offenders in treatment rather than jail.

The county was spending its own money on court-mandated drug treatment even
before Proposition 36. But some significant differences may have increased
treatment costs in the county:

* In drug court, judges had the discretion to send addicts to jail. Now,
addicts get up to three shots at treatment, and many repeat misdemeanor
offenders also are eligible.

* The law requires treatment for hard-core users, including felons who might
not have been sent to treatment before.

"There were a lot of those the first year," Garner said. "My guess is there
will be a lot of them for a while."

Still, one of the predicted benefits from the new law may be taking place. The
jail population and the number of jailed drug felons have dropped in Santa
Clara County.

But because treatment can last up to a year, and post-treatment care six more
months, it's too early to say what has happened to people after they leave the
system.

"I believe people who do get into treatment and stay there benefit," said Cliff
Rubenstein of the San Mateo County Probation Department. "It's a little early
to say people will not re-offend."

One positive sign is the "show rate." Of addicts who opt for treatment
statewide, 69 percent show up, according to the UCLA study. In Santa Clara
County, 75 percent of assessed addicts make it to treatment.

Douglas Longshore, who led the analysis for Integrated Substance Abuse Programs
at UCLA, said the typical show rate for other treatment programs -- those that
lack the force of law -- is generally less than 50 percent.

"The important thing at this point," Longshore said, "is to know that most of
the people who opt for Prop. 36 are getting into the door."