Pubdate: Sun, 8 Apr 2001 Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Copyright: 2001 San Jose Mercury News Contact: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390 Author: Ed Pope Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm (Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act) A New Approach TREATMENT OBSTACLES SLOW PROGRESS As Bay Area counties scramble to provide treatment for drug users instead of jail, they're encountering two obstacles that are making their jobs infinitely tougher: NIMBYism, or Not In My Back Yard, and housing prices. ``One of the difficulties in providing treatment is building capacity,'' said Marye L. Thomas, director of health services for Alameda County. ``Especially in the residential community, you can't just flip a switch and get more housing. ``There's quite a lot of NIMBYism. People just don't want treatment houses in their neighborhoods,'' she said. ``If we have to increase residential capacity substantially, it's going to take some time.'' Otherwise, the counties report good progress in implementing Proposition 36. Santa Clara, with a well-established drug court program, is viewed as a model by counties around the state. Here is a summary of how other counties in the region are doing: Alameda -- The county is considering innovative ways to expand its treatment base, including appealing to faith-based organizations. ``There are six-bed, sober-living houses scattered throughout the community, and they are an untapped resource,'' Thomas said. But they also are not licensed to provide treatment, so that would require more effort to make them eligible. Alameda County has a caseload of 6,500 clients and anticipates Proposition 36 will add between 2,500 and 3,200 a year. Santa Cruz -- ``We expect to go to the board of supervisors with our Proposition 36 plan in mid-May,'' said William F. Manov, administrator of the county alcohol and drug program. Manov said there are more than 1,900 people already in some form of drug treatment, but the county expects the proposition to add 500 offenders a year to that mix. ``Not all 500 will show up on July 1, but the question is how quickly can we ramp up the treatment system. As we get into the particulars of the proposition, the definition of who is eligible is more complicated than it seems on the surface,'' he said. There is little concern about licensing new programs, Manov said, because the county expects to handle the new cases by expanding existing treatment programs, which are already licensed. San Francisco -- ``We have an extensive planning process with a San Francisco flavor,'' said Phyllis Harding, director of the department of public health. That's probably not surprising in light of the fact that 72 percent of the city's residents voted in favor of Proposition 36. The planning process is particularly difficult in San Francisco because of the diverse population and the unique kinds of addiction problems it sees. For example, Asian residents tend to smoke methamphetamines, while the gay population tends to inject that drug. ``We need gender- and culturally appropriate programs. We have to serve many people in their native languages,'' Harding said. San Mateo -- Like many other counties, San Mateo is looking to expand its present treatment facilities as the easiest way to comply with the dictates of Proposition 36. There are 25 providers now in business that have ``demonstrated a high level of readiness to expand,'' said Yvonne Frazier, the county's drug and alcohol services coordinator. Officials have identified between 1,600 and 1,800 new treatment clients a year that the system is likely to have to deal with, though that number could come down. San Mateo currently has a caseload of about 6,000. - --- MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk