Pubdate: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 Source: San Francisco Chronicle (CA) Copyright: 2002 Hearst Communications Inc. Contact: http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/388 Author: Bill Wallace, SF Chronicle Staff Writer VOTER-ORDERED DRUG REHAB PROMISING BUT COSTLY Prop. 36 Treatment Requirements Put Counties In A Pinch California's counties are starting to come up short of cash to pay for treatment programs required for small-time drug offenders under Proposition 36, county officials say. While the nearly year-old drug-treatment system has gotten off to an unexpectedly smooth start in many respects, the large number of offenders who have plenty of other problems -- including mental illness, poverty, homelessness and long rap sheets -- is straining the law's financial foundation, the officials say. In some cases, counties have been forced to use their general funds to support treatment programs required by the new law. And other counties fear their turn may be next. "We have been told that the average participant in the program had 14 prior arrests -- not necessarily for drug-related offenses, but for various different things," said Lydia Becerra, a spokeswoman for county alcohol and drug programs in Los Angeles. "It is an indication to us that their problems are often more severe than we had anticipated." More troubled clients mean more treatment -- and that in turn is starting to hurt some counties' budgets. Proposition 36, passed by state voters in 2000, dramatically changed the state system for dealing with drug cases by requiring that those arrested for use or possession of drugs in small quantities be given treatment instead of jail time. Before the measure passed, the state's nonpartisan legislative analyst office projected that 24,000 users a year would receive treatment under Proposition 36. Actual annual totals will not be available until next month, the first anniversary of the law's implementation, but the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, the lead state agency in putting the measure into action, said that in the first six months after the new law took effect, 12, 000 people statewide were referred to treatment. However, a more recent review by the Drug Policy Alliance -- a Sacramento organization that proposed the ballot measure in 2000 -- said that as of March, 13,695 people had been enrolled in six counties alone: Contra Costa, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego and Ventura. Randy Snowden, director of alcohol and drug programs for Napa County, said treating Proposition 36 clients with extensive criminal histories and mental health problems has proved costly. Running Out Of Funds The initiative provided $120 million a year to be split among California's 58 counties for treatment and law enforcement costs, Snowden said. That is barely enough to pay for drug treatment, he said, let alone the panoply of other mental health needs. "Because so many of them need much more extensive treatment than we had originally projected, there are insufficient facilities to handle all the cases, and there really isn't enough money to pay for the services they need," Snowden said. "If you add it up, the total cost of providing the Prop. 36 programs we run is about three times the amount of money we get from Prop. 36," Snowden said. "All Prop. 36 has done is add to the (county's) net deficit." As a result, officials in Napa and some other counties have been forced to tap their general funds, while their colleagues elsewhere fear they will soon do the same. "Money is the big problem," said Larry Bogats, human services manager for San Mateo County, which has already seen about 500 new clients under Proposition 36 and expects eventually to have about 1,500. "Year two, year three -- I think we are going to hit that funding wall." Even the Drug Policy Alliance admitted clients' peripheral problems are causing financial difficulties, but the organization called the initiative a success and said the fiscal crunch will eventually ease. "We anticipate that the number of individuals who qualify (for Prop. 36) will decrease over time as tens of thousands of them receive treatment," said a March progress report by the alliance. Overlap In Patients Some county drug treatment administrators said the clients generated by Proposition 36 seem to be the same people they were already trying to help. "Here in San Francisco, for years we have been seeing some really serious cases of people with drug problems that are complicated by mental health problems, homelessness and so on," said Bruce Occena, director of treatment access for the city's Proposition 36 program. Because San Francisco has been pushing drug diversion and other alternatives to jail for abusers much longer than most other California communities, Occena said, the city has not been surprised at the treatment needs of Proposition 36 clients. "It's a little too early for detailed trend data, but it seems that the majority of the people we are seeing in the system now are people who have been in the system before," Occena said. It is too early to tell whether Proposition 36 is graduating people who will remain drug free -- or what percentage will even complete treatment. The state is preparing a year-end review scheduled for summer release. Some Early Successes Aside from funding complaints, almost everyone contacted by The Chronicle involved in implementing the programs agreed the new system has started well. Many of the predicted problems -- including a paralyzing amount of litigation, too few treatment facilities and a scarcity of treatment to meet initial demand -- have not materialized. Even the California District Attorneys Association, which opposed the measure, said there have been surprisingly few glitches. "There has been a really high level of cooperation between all the parties who are involved," said Lawrence Brown, a former Ventura County prosecutor who serves as executive director of the group. "Most of the state's elected district attorneys and law enforcement officials campaigned against Prop. 36, but once the voters made it clear that this was the way they wanted to go, everybody sincerely tried to follow the public's will," Brown said. County drug treatment administrators said they are pleased with the progress as well. "The biggest thing was to get the whole infrastructure in place and get things running smoothly," said Pat Furlong, the director of Alameda County's program. "We have more than 1,000 people participating at this point in time, and most of them probably wouldn't have been in treatment otherwise." Some longtime drug abusers say the new law has offered them the first real hope of a normal life. Christina Luft of Sacramento said she has been a heroin addict for 11 years and worked as a prostitute "and ripped people off" to support her habit. After Luft's last arrest on felony heroin charges, Proposition 36 channeled her into a residential treatment program and drug counseling. "I just got accepted into a long-term transitional housing program for low-income women," she said. "My turnaround is just going great." - --- MAP posted-by: Beth