Year-Old Law Assists Many Drug Abusers

A California law designed to provide nonviolent drug offenders with treatment rather than putting them behind bars has expanded rehabilitation services and helped thousands of people, state officials said.

But many of these defendants are severely addicted or have mental problems and cannot be adequately treated in regular rehabilitation programs, the officials also said. In addition, some officials fear that the current level of state funding will not be sufficient to continue providing intensive treatment.

Enacted one year ago today, voter-approved Proposition 36 requires that those convicted of possession, use or transportation of drugs for personal use be offered treatment rather than jail sentences.

After the first six months of the program, at least 12,000 defendants were in treatment, officials said. Statistics are not yet available for the full year.

“We’re very pleased that we have significant numbers of people that are in treatment,” said Del Sayles-Owen, deputy director of the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.

An estimated one-third of the defendants referred for treatment, however, either failed to show up or dropped out during the first six months the law was in effect.

Sayles-Owen said that some defendants do not succeed because they don’t have transportation. Others lack motivation, judges and drug counselors said.

“We are squandering a lot of resources on people who are not ready for treatment,” said Judge Michael A. Tynan of Los Angeles County Superior Court. “It’s distressing.”

In Los Angeles, about half of the 7,500 defendants referred for help were still in treatment by the end of May, Tynan said. Part of the problem, he said, is that sanctions are not strict enough, allowing defendants three chances to succeed before they face jail.

Jim Stillwell, executive director of the IMPACT drug treatment center in Pasadena, said fewer people are no-shows now than in the first few months. “I’m not ready to give it an A or anything, but I think we’re on the right track.”

Kern County has come up with a new way to deal with retention, deciding that an obvious solution would be to increase supervision. Unable to afford more probation officers, the county hired interns seeking certification as alcohol and drug counselors.

A major challenge is the number of participants who suffer from depression or severe bipolar disorder. “We’re not sophisticated psychiatric units,” Stillwell said. “The average drug counselor is just not equipped educationally to handle somebody who might be suicidal.”

UCLA researchers have started a five-year evaluation of Proposition 36 and published an article this spring that identified several problems. In addition to the number of people not showing up for treatment, it cited a large number of high-need cases and insufficient future funding.

Among many county officials who direct the programs under Proposition 36, money is the top concern.

The state allocated $60 million for start-up costs and $120 million for the year just ending. Though proponents say no one has been denied treatment for lack of funds, county directors say they have had to spend more money than anticipated on residential treatment for severely addicted offenders.

Though the original law did not set aside money for urine tests, new legislation has provided $8.4 million for that purpose.

The funding shortage affects both large and small counties.

Butte County, for example, projected that there would be 600 participants. Even though only about 350 people have been sentenced there under Proposition 36, the county has little room for expansion, said Bradford Luz, the county’s alcohol and drug administrator.

“We’ll have to get more creative about how we’re using resources,” Luz said.

Proposition 36 was designed to decrease the prison population, save taxpayer money and reduce addiction rates.

In 12 months, the number of convicts in state prison has decreased by 3,272 to 158,089.

“What we have seen is a dip in our inmate population as some parolees are referred for Proposition 36, as opposed to being re-incarcerated,” said Russ Heimerich, spokesman for the California Department of Corrections.

But he said the exact effects of Proposition 36 could not be quantified.

The Drug Policy Alliance, which championed the law and is tracking its progress, has reported that the number of treatment programs jumped by 68% from 1,061 to 1,567 this year, and that there are 3,204 more residential beds.

But alliance officials noted that some treatment programs do not adequately address cultural, language and gender needs.

Santa Clara University School of Law professor Gerald Uelman said that, despite the concerns, early results show that Proposition 36 appears to be doing what it was designed to do. “We’ve gotten a lot more people into treatment, and I think we’re going to save a ton of taxpayer money,” Uelman said. “What concerns me is whether we are going to keep getting the funding we need.”