RESTORE TESTING FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT PROP. 36

CALIFORNIA'S economy was already stung by a series of financial blows --
starting with the dot-com slowdown and then followed quickly by the energy
crisis -- when it was blindsided by the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on our
nation. Among the casualties has been state funding for drug testing to
implement Proposition 36, which offers drug treatment instead of
incarceration for eligible defendants.

Citing the uncertainty in our economy, Gov. Gray Davis earlier this month
cut $9.6 million earmarked for drug testing at the same time he directed all
agency and department heads to draw up plans to cut their budgets by 15
percent.

The $9.6 million cut leaves counties with an unexpected bill and could
weaken the treatment approach because drug testing is essential to
successful drug treatment programs. We urge the Legislature to restore the
state funding next year. In the meantime, we might follow the example of
Arizona, which has a similar drug treatment law. There, defendants who opt
for treatment pay for their own tests when they can afford to.

When voters passed Proposition 36 in November 2000, they approved an
initiative that expressly prohibited using any of the $120 million annual
treatment budget for drug testing. The authors of the initiative feared too
much money would be diverted from treatment to testing.

Federal grants totaling $8.4 million a year -- and the $9.6 million a year
from the state -- were allocated for drug testing. Now, with only the
federal funds, counties are having to dip into their savings and find other
ways to pay for the drug tests.

Alameda County alone could have 2,500 defendants a year eligible for drug
treatment. At between $3.50 and $10 a test, the tab in Alameda County, for
example, would be between $8,750 and $25,000 to test people just once. And
for effective treatment, clients must be tested sometimes as often as once a
week, particularly at the beginning of the rehabilitation process.

Cutting back on drug testing is not a reasonable option because it would
eliminate a major tool of rehabilitation and undermine the process.

The Arizona model may offer a way out of the impasse. In the Grand Canyon
State, 70 percent of the clients pay for their own drug tests, greatly
reducing the cost to the state.

Drug treatment experts in California said they hadn't considered a fee for
the drug tests because they didn't think drug-addicted clients would be able
to foot the bill. That may be true for some, but others will be able to pay.
California counties and local governments implementing Proposition 36 should
charge for the drug tests, or at least a portion of the cost, on a case by
case basis.

The voters made it clear they want those who are eligible to receive drug
treatment instead of incarceration. To make the program work, we need
ongoing drug testing. Until the state is in a better financial situation to
contribute to the funding, counties should collect fees from clients to
cover the expense.