Pubdate: Wed, 23 May 2001
Source: San Bernardino Sun (CA)
Copyright: 2001 MediaNews Group, Inc.
Contact:  http://www.mapinc.org/media/1417
Website: http://www.sbcsun.com/
Note: Letters of 200 words or less are preferred
Author: Felisa Cardona
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm 
(Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act)

DRUG CRIMES LAW GETS FACELIFT

Despite objections from the founder of the county's drug courts,
supervisors OK plan to implement Proposition 36.

SAN BERNARDINO Over the objections of Superior Court Judge Patrick
Morris, county supervisors Tuesday approved a plan to implement a new
law
designed to treat drug offenders rather than incarcerate them.

Morris, founder of the county's drug courts, told the Board of
Supervisors that the county's plan to carry out Proposition 36, the
Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act of 2000, isn't strong enough to help drug offenders stay
clean.

Presiding Judge Roberta McPeters disagreed with Morris and said the plan
was sound, considering the amount of money the county has to work with.

Despite Morris' opposition, supervisors voted 4-0, with Jerry Eaves
absent, to authorize implementation of the plan effective July 1.

The plan must be submitted next week to the state Office of Alcohol and
Drug Programs for review before the state releases $5.3 million to the
county.

Voters in March 2000 passed the landmark initiative, which requires that
first- and second-time nonviolent drug offenders be offered treatment.
The law also
mandates that offenders receive vocational and educational training
while undergoing treatment.

Morris said there is not enough emphasis on judicial monitoring of
offenders in the plan and that he doesn't believe all judges expected to
carry out the measure
have been properly trained to understand effective treatment of drug
offenders.

"I'm concerned about what our plan does not say," Morris told the board.
"It fails to specify how we are going to treat this population. You have
to have a
specially trained team to work with relapsing clients. This is not an
effective way of encouraging this population."

The judge wants defendants eligible for treatment under Proposition 36
to have the same benefits as those enrolled in drug court. He said one
of the most
important factors for drug addicts to stay clean is to have frequent
contact with the judge to discuss the progress they are making in their
programs.

"The fact of the matter is, we are the only urban county in the state
that is not following the drug court model," he said. "Over the years we
have developed
one of the finest reputations in the nation for our drug courts. We
ought to be leading this."

Morris is a member of a statewide group of court officers who
established guidelines on how the new law should be carried out. The
group recommends that
those eligible under Proposition 36 be placed on a specialized court
calendar, rather than scattered throughout the criminal court case load.

The plan also should include special training for judges and court staff
to learn what to expect from drug addicts enrolled in court-supervised
treatment
programs, Morris said.

Morris told the board that during a trial run of Proposition 36 by a
judge in Orange County, half of the 300 felons ordered to return to
court for treatment
programs didn't show up.

"Addicts think only in the moment," Morris said. "How we engage and
retain them is important."

McPeters said the Legislature didn't allocate enough money to carry out
the kind of drug court model Morris would prefer. Morris' plan would
involve hiring
additional public defenders, prosecutors and probation officers, she
said.

"Judge Morris tells you that it has to be done under a certain model,
but it's not the model the Legislature has funded," she said.

Morris disagreed.

"It's not too expensive," he said. "Everyone else is doing it. This is a
difference in judicial philosophy as to whether (treatment) is valued as
a court function or
not."

Implementation of Proposition 36 will cost the county about $9.3 million
the first year, said Gary Morris, an administrative analyst with the
county Human
System Services Department.

The county will keep the $2.7 million in seed money sent by the state
earlier this year in a special trust fund to be used in the event
federal or state funding for
drug testing isn't approved or there are more clients than anticipated.

The seed money and the $5.3 million to be released once the county's
plan is approved are supposed to cover the basic costs of carrying out
the measure.
Additional funds will be repaid to the county by Medi-Cal, private
insurance companies and fees paid by defendants enrolled in the
treatment programs.

It's not known whether the money will be sufficient because there is no
way to be sure how many offenders will be eligible for the program, Gary
Morris said.

Estimates quoted to the board Tuesday ranged from 6,500 to as many as
10,000 clients.

"We don't have solid estimates on the total cost to the courts or to the
county for treatment programs," said 4th District Supervisor Fred
Aguiar. "We don't
know how many people to expect in this system."

Third District Supervisor Dennis Hansberger suggested the board review
the program after 90 days to see whether adjustments need to be made.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk