CALIFORNIA DRUG TREATMENT MANDATE MUST HAVE PROPER SUPPORT

Court Challenges Slow Progress, Hinder Effectiveness

Proposition 36, the landmark drug treatment initiative that state
voters passed in 2000, is salvaging lives and saving the state
millions of dollars in prison costs. But it would be more effective
if it were administered differently and more fully funded.

Instead, vital reforms that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger advocated and
the Legislature overwhelmingly passed last year are stuck in court,
with no resolution expected any time soon, because of challenges by
stubborn Proposition 36 opponents.

Funding for Proposition 36 is stuck at 2000 levels: $120 million a
year. Funding recommendations from an institute at the University of
California-Los Angeles are trapped in the governor's office, no doubt
because Schwarzenegger doesn't like what they say - and doesn't want
the public to know.

It's time to dislodge the obstacles to effective substance-abuse
treatment, starting with the report.

UCLA's Integrated Substance Abuse Programs handed in an analysis of
Proposition 36 funding in May 2006; it submitted its final evaluation
in December to the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs,
which has forwarded it to the governor's office.

It's a safe bet that the institute is recommending the state spend
more on Proposition 36 treatment and post-therapy supervision - and
at least the $209 million per year that an association of county drug
administrators has said is needed. No wonder the governor prefers to
keep it under his cigar box.

But that's not his call. The institute study was publicly funded. The
governor should release it now.

Sufficient state funding is critical, especially for Santa Clara
County. Faced with a $238 million deficit, the county has proposed
whacking as much as 40 percent of drug treatment money, eliminating
1,000 slots for residential treatment and 4,000 outpatient slots.

Superior Court Judge Stephen Manley makes a compelling case that a
cut of this magnitude would cost the county more money. Deprived of
treatment option, judges have no choice but to imprison drug
offenders - a more expensive option.

Santa Clara County's drug treatment court is one of the state's most
successful. More than two-thirds of defendants who go through the
county drug court complete treatment, compared with only one-third of
defendants statewide who consent to treatment under the provisions of
Proposition 36. That figure is deceiving, because one-quarter of
defendants whose cases fall under Proposition 36 jurisdiction are
no-shows: They either skip treatment or don't show up in court in the
first place.

Under Proposition 36, most people convicted of drug possession
receive three chances to complete treatment to rid themselves of
their habit. Only after that can they be sentenced to prison. Because
Proposition 36 is so forgiving, some drug users don't take the law seriously.

Harder-core addicts and felons who don't qualify for Proposition 36
programs end up in drug court, where judges have a wider range of
sanctions than Proposition 36 allows. One of these is the ability to
impose "flash" jail sentences - a few days or up to a week behind
bars to shock defendants out of a state of denial.

Impressed with its effectiveness, the Legislature last year amended
Proposition 36 to make it more like drug court, providing stricter
supervision while extending the maximum length of residential
treatment. But opponents of flash sentencing sued and, for now, have
succeeded in tying up the reforms in court.

Proposition 36 needs to be strengthened. But its imperfections must
not be used as an excuse for under-funding. The state and county must
meet the demand for treatment - or face more crime and higher costs
of imprisonment.