Pubdate: Tue, 10 Apr 2001
Source: San Diego Union Tribune (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Union-Tribune Publishing Co.
Contact:  http://www.uniontrib.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/386
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm (Substance Abuse and Crime 
Prevention Act)

THE BIG FIX

Implementing Drug Treatment Faces Hurdles

Ballot initiatives are voters' dreams thrown into the laps of government 
employees. They rarely turn out the way people envision because, no matter 
how detailed, initiatives are only concepts, not public programs. Counties 
throughout California are now struggling to bring Proposition 36, the 
initiative favoring treatment rather than imprisonment for drug-addicted 
criminals, into the realm of reality by July 1.

The state has set up loose guidelines, but mostly left it up to each county 
to figure out how to provide treatment to nonviolent, drug-abusing 
offenders, as the proposition mandates.

One constant for all 58 counties is that first-and second-time offenders 
cannot be sent to jail, although very few of them ever were. In the past, 
those drug abusers often were released with nothing more than a citation. 
Now, they'll be sent to court-ordered drug treatment or education. Many 
might yearn for the old days.

Although plans aren't final yet, the differences between counties could be 
significant. Santa Clara County, for example, is leaning toward spending 
all its Proposition 36 money -- $60 million divided among all counties -- 
on treatment and little on supervising offenders. San Diego County will 
spend much of its start-up money on hiring new probation officers and 
addiction specialists to case manage the estimated 5,000 to 6,000 new 
offenders under Proposition 36. New treatment beds and outpatient treatment 
slots will be paid for with the local share of the $120 million ongoing 
annual funding.

The biggest differences between counties will be how much offenders are 
supervised. In Santa Clara County, a judge may send a Proposition 36 
offender to outpatient treatment, then leave it up to treatment counselors 
to send reports back to the court. In San Diego County, a probation officer 
and an addiction specialist might closely monitor the offender, depending 
on his level of addiction and criminal history. Other differences will 
include how rigorously substance abusers are assessed regarding their drug 
problems, and how often they'll be drug tested.

What's the state's job? It will study how well each county is doing and 
make recommendations. Counties that don't significantly assess, monitor and 
provide treatment for substance abusers won't be successful in reducing 
crime caused by addicts.

Two serious pitfalls lie ahead, warns Kathryn Jett, director of the 
California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. One is the severe 
statewide shortage of drug counselors to work in the expanding treatment 
field. These near-minimum-wage jobs, which require a certificate, not a 
college degree, are usually held by people with a deep commitment to 
recovery -- often recovering addicts themselves. Jett fears the state 
Legislature might demand more training for counselors, thus exacerbating 
the shortage.

The other pitfall is NIMBYism. Although 61 percent of voters supported 
Proposition 36, which mandates community-based treatment, people don't want 
treatment centers in their neighborhood. Jett suggested that law 
enforcement, criminal justice and other public officials need to promote 
the necessity of treatment centers. If angry neighbors, and politicians 
pandering to them, can kill treatment programs, the vision of treating 
addicted offenders to prevent them from becoming serious criminals will 
never work. Such NIMBYism is already afoot in San Diego County.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jo-D