Pubdate: Sun, 01 Jul 2001
Source: Appeal-Democrat (CA)
Copyright: 2001 Appeal-Democrat
Contact:  http://www.appeal-democrat.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1343
Author: Lois Gormley

DRUG USERS GETTING HELP

Voters Mandate Diversion

After months of planning, probation and court officials are ready to begin 
implementing Proposition 36, the drug treatment diversion program initiative.

But many say it is plagued with unanswered questions - including when the 
initiative was meant to go into effect - and funding shortfalls.

Just days before the state's new drug treatment initiative was implemented, 
Yuba County Chief Probation Officer Steve Roper said his office has planned 
for the influx of new probationers as well as possible, and will wait to 
see just how many new cases the initiative will bring.

Between the two counties, more than $500,000 has been allocated by the 
state to fund the initiative. However, based on current projections, the 
funding is insufficient to cover the dual thrust of the proposition, both 
treatment needs and supervision needs, Roper said.

Proposition 36, passed by California voters in November, goes into effect 
today. The initiative requires the diversion of non-violent offenders 
charged with drug possession, use or transportation for personal use from 
incarceration to substance abuse treatment programs.

Added to the existing drug court and drug diversion programs, Proposition 
36 is designed to create a balance - providing treatment to the entire 
spectrum of drug users - high, medium and low level.

The way the proposition is set up, probation departments will carry the 
bulk of responsibility for implementation, overseeing drug testing and 
monitoring of probationers activities.

Yuba County Probation Department anticipated 150 new cases in the first 
year, in addition to the 105 formal drug cases already active, Roper said.

Because probation caseloads are cumulative - they exist for years - he said 
he anticipates there will be between 300 and 350 people in various stages 
of Proposition 36 treatment at the end of a three-year cycle.

An estimated 32 parolees are expected to qualify for Proposition 36 but 
their supervision will be handled by the Department of Corrections.

"The numbers could be more, could be less - we could be absolutely 
inundated," he said.

Funding from the state is available for the first five years the initiative 
is in effect.

Yuba County District Attorney Pat McGrath said the county has been 
allocated $388,000 for the first year, approximately $50,000 of which will 
be used for administrative costs for the Probation Department and treatment 
providers.

The remaining funds will be used to cover program costs for probationers.

That works out to approximately $1,857 per person - which may be enough for 
moderate low level treatment, but would not cover the usual $3,000 fee for 
30-day residential treatment in a private facility, McGrath said.

Sutter County received $369,640. None of the state funding allocated can be 
used to test the probationers for drug use, said Sutter County Assistant 
District Attorney Fred Schroeder.

"That's going to be a problem," he said.

Optimism Is Important

The cost of testing 150 probationers at least once a week for 12 months at 
$7 per test is $50,400. Roper said testing is labor intensive and factoring 
in those costs would drive the price up to about $13 per test, or $93,600 a 
year.

To provide for the supervision of Proposition 36 probationers, Yuba County 
Probation has created a Monitoring and Supervision Unit consisting of two 
deputy probation officers and two probation aides.

If the projections for 150 Proposition 36 probationers are correct, that 
equals out to approximately 75 cases per officer - about what each officer 
currently handles, Roper said.

Sworn staff will handle the court work and community supervision, and the 
aides will track treatment progress and handle drug testing, he said.

Sutter County Chief Probation Officer Christine Odom is also anticipating 
an additional 150 drug cases and has promoted a deputy probation officer to 
coordinate forms and case flow and handle most of the court work, while a 
line officer will handle the community supervision.

In January, she will evaluate the caseload and determine if it is necessary 
to hire a third officer.

Odom said the department currently handles 115 active drug diversion cases 
and some of those may merge into Proposition 36, which could provide the 
services of the officer handling those cases as well.

Funding and the additional workload for probation departments are not the 
only implementation issues surrounding Proposition 36.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether it should apply to 
sentencings conducted after July 1, regardless of the date of conviction, 
or be applied only to sentencings for crimes committed from that date on. 
Which route to take is being left to the individual district attorney's 
offices statewide.

"The California Judges Conference believed the date of sentencing is the 
critical date of eligibility for Proposition 36," Schroeder said. That is 
the date both Sutter and Yuba counties will use.

Schroeder said Proposition 36 will mean a few more court appearances for 
prosecuting attorneys, otherwise the largest role the DA's office will play 
is in determining if the arrestee is eligible for the treatment program.

McGrath said the initiative is poorly written and open to a number of 
interpretations, which will become problematic once it takes effect.

If someone is sentenced to 30 days in jail on a third Proposition 36 
conviction, does that mean 30 days maximum, 30 days minimum - the 
guidelines don't say, he said.

McGrath said the proposition has the same basic idea as drug court - 
treatment instead of incarceration - but its offenders may not be as 
motivated as those in drug court who have truly hit bottom.

Drug court, which has been in operation in Sutter County for just over a 
year and in Yuba County for five years, was designed to provide habitual 
drug users with an alternative to incarceration, focusing instead on 
rehabilitation through counseling, intense supervision and drug testing.

Schroeder said had the proposition been done differently, it probably would 
have been a good idea. He said he is hopeful that it will be amended in the 
future to "put more stick in the carrot stick approach" and give probation 
more money.

"It is the threat of jail that wakes a lot of people up," Schroeder said. 
"There are some who will just go (into treatment) to get out of going to 
jail. Those people are why we wish we had a bit more teeth in this thing."

In Yuba County, a special Proposition 36 court has been created and will be 
presided over by Judge David Wasilenko, who also presides over the county's 
drug court.

"We'll use the expertise gained in drug court and expand it into 
Proposition 36," he said.

Proposition 36 participants will be required to return to court for regular 
appearances, even though the initiative does not require it, Wasilenko 
said. The same team that works with the drug court will also be reviewing 
the progress of Proposition 36 participants and make adjustments to 
treatment accordingly, he said.

He said he thinks the Proposition 36 program is a good one and will work in 
Yuba County.

"People need to go into the program excited at the prospect of helping 
people, not pessimistic that they will all fail," Wasilenko said.

He admits that there will be those who find themselves back in court for a 
violation.

"The question is how many," Wasilenko said. "I believe there will be less 
reoffending because of Proposition 36. That's a good thing, a positive thing."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth