State Underfunding Blamed in O.C.’s $6-Million Loss on Prop. 36 Drug Care

Orange County is losing about $6 million a year as it struggles to provide drug treatment services mandated under Proposition 36, which requires courts to offer counseling instead of jail for most first-time offenders, according to a new county analysis.

The budgets of the county’s health, public defender, probation and district attorney offices are affected by the proposition, which was approved by voters in 2000 and became law in July 2001.

The agencies expect to spend a combined $14.5 million this fiscal year dealing with Proposition 36 cases but will only receive $8.5 million from the state, according to an analysis county officials generated at the request of the Orange County Grand Jury.

As a result of the shortfall, the county cut by 80% the number of drug users it will place in residential treatment, said Sandra Fair, chief of behavioral health operations for the Health Care Agency and chairwoman of the county’s Proposition 36 Oversight Committee.

That means that more than 700 people who would have been placed in residential treatment will receive outpatient care, she said.

“Everyone will be provided services, they just won’t be as intensive as they need to be,” Fair said. “Throughout the state there are counties that have had to reduce services for this fiscal year.”

The county prepared the analysis in response to a grand jury report this year that noted the financial challenges the proposition had created.

Under Proposition 36, the state allocates $120 million per year for counties to provide treatment to drug offenders. Orange County’s share of that money is $8.5 million per year.

Fair estimated that the state is underfunding counties statewide by about $60 million.

Tom Havlena, a senior assistant public defender who represents the public defender’s office on the county Proposition 36 committee, said he believes that the proposition’s authors underestimated the number of people who would need intensive residential treatment.

“I think the program is working well for some people but it could be more effective for others if there was more funding.” he said. “We have clients who sometimes desperately need and want residential treatment but the resources aren’t there.”

Funding for Proposition 36 drug treatment could become more troublesome in July 2006. At that time, state funding established by the proposition runs out, creating a severe shortage for the counties that could only be corrected by new legislation.

“The mandate [to provide treatment] continues. What disappears is the funding,” Fair said.