FCL NEWSLETTER -- March, 2001

Four months after California voters resoundingly approved a landmark change in drug policy, state and local officials are hard at work to make Proposition 36 a reality. Right now, county officials are spending $60 million awarded in January to 'ramp up' for the July start date of this groundbreaking law.

The measure, which garnered 61 percent of the vote, is an indication that the public is fed up with the failure of the war on drugs. Federal, state and local drug fighting costs an estimated $40 billion a year, but the prisons bulge with inmates; one in four convicted of drug offenses and eight in 10 with a history of alcohol or drug abuse. More people are incarcerated in California for simple possession of drugs like crack cocaine than in any other state, both per capita and in total numbers. Overwhelming they are African American and Latino, although studies say drug use equally affects all ethnic groups.

According to its proponents, Proposition 36 promises to cut California's prison population substantially and trim millions a year from the state budget. Those changes will result from the proposition's two basic provisions: 1) first- and second-offense non-violent drug violators go to state-funded treatment instead of prison or jail; 2) drug testing--which, when positive, is often the sole reason parolees and probationers are returned to incarceration--is specifically not funded, although local offices can use other funds to provide for tests.

The provisions of Propostion 36 apply only to those persons sentenced (or facing a parole revocation) after July 1, 2001.

Drug testing controversy

The state's judicial and law enforcement communities are virtually unanimous in their opposition to Proposition 36's no drug testing policy. They maintain that drug users are likely to be involved in other criminal conduct and that the threat of a return to jail deters drug relapses. Treatment advocates counter with the argument that relapses are often a normal part of recovery for peoole who do not commit crimes to support their habit, does nothing to speed the recovery process. To open up a little wiggle room for therapeutic drug testing under Proposition 36, Sen. John Burton, (D., San Francisco) has introduced SB 223. This bill allocates funds to counties for testing if it used to monitor treatment, and not as a pretext for sending parolees and probationers back to prison. FCL SUPPORTS.

Staffing shortages and quality control

To implement Proposition 36, California will need more counselors, more probation officers, and more quality control.

California's drug treatment programs currently serve about 80,000 clients with about 5,000 people waiting for admission in any given month. Since the existing network of service providers is already overwhelmed, the state's professional association of alcoholism and drug abuse counselors has proposed that their national organization provide experienced volunteer counselors to assist in recruitment, training, and guidance of new counselors. The association also urges creation of a loan and scholarship program to enable new counselors to secure education and work experience.

The counselors also want the state to come up with more stringent standards for licensing new treatment facilities. There are no tests or educational requirements for those who operate a residential treatment facility.

Currently, the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, the state agency that will monitor the expansion of the drug treatment system under Proposition 36, employs 25 program analysts to license, certify, and respond to complaints in the state 663 residential alcohol and drug programs and 376 non-residential programs.

In addition, the California Association of Alcoholism and Drug Counselors wants certification of their own profession through the establishment of a state licensing board and the requirement of 315 college-level hours and 4000 hours of clinically supervised field experience. At their request, Senator John Vasconcellos, D., Silicon Valley, has introduced SB 537 to establish a licensing board for alcohol and drug counselors. FCL SUPPORTS.

Probation departments also worry about the impact of Proposition 36 on their workloads. Alan Crogan, San Diego CountyŐs chief probation officer, estimates his office will handle 4200 new cases in the first three years the measure is effective, and he will need 80 new officers to handle the influx.

Slowing prison growth

How many people will Proposition 36 actually divert from overcrowded state prisons? The proposition's most likely impact will be a decline in probation and parole failures resulting from failed drug tests.

The non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office estimates that 24,000 people now go to prison each year on parole revocations or on charges eligible for probationary treatment under Proposition 36. With adequate treatment, is it too much to expect that a third or more of these could be saved from prison? Eight thousand fewer prisoners each year could provide substantial relief to an overgrown state prison system. The Department of Corrections is projecting a somewhat lower savings: 3,770 fewer prisoners, saving only 60 million dollars in prison costs.

Budget

Is $120 million a year enough to treat Proposition 36's target population? A recent RAND Corporation study estimated treatment costs at $92 to $115 million for the first year.

However, law enforcement professionals point out that the actual costs of keeping non-violent drug offenders out of jail may be higher than the RAND research anticipates. They claim that Proposition 36 clients are likely to be expensive to supervise: resisting treatment, frequently changing addresses, and often lacking funds to care for themselves and to pay for a fair share of their treatment. Clearly, the Proposition 36 caseload will challenge the drug treatment and criminal justice system. Reasonable demands for performance will need to be balanced with attainable goals for clients who have suffered multiple setbacks in their lives. Some treatment programs will rise to the occasion.

The task for state and county drug treatment program directors is to find out quickly which programs are really performing, to enable other programs to learn from them and to replace programs that under-perform after they have been given the opportunity to improve.

Preventive treatment

Proposition 36 is an important break-through toward achieving real results in the "war on drugs." Equally, if not more important is stopping drug usage before it leads to arrest.

The Legislative Analyst has identified $57 million in funding available to the state in connection with Proposition 36. Why not spend these dollars on expanding access to drug treatment?

WHAT YOU CAN DO: If you or a close family member has ever undergone drug treatment, now is the time to recall the turning points in your experiences in a letter to your local state assembly member and state senator, as well as to Senators Burton and Vasconcellos. You can find out how to contact them in your FCL Legislative Roster, mailed to all FCL supporters in late March. Be sure to send a copy of your letter to FCL.

Steve Birdlebough and Ken Larsen

[BOX]
"When drug use results in problems for individuals, treatment and education should be emphasized, rather than punitive measures.... The FCL urges increased support for an expansion of preventive and educational programs throughout our schools, work places and community to help foster a social climate in which individuals can make better informed choices regarding drug use."
-- from FCL's Policy Statement on Drug Abuse

Addiction treatment can be effective when it is competently administered. Standard treatments have been shown to produce significant reductions in drug use. Drug-related problems such as crime, family violence, unemployment, and welfare dependence are also reduced.

However, not all kinds of treatment are useful in all cases, and some are even harmful. The National Institute on Drug Abuse suggests 13 guidelines for effective treatment of drug dependencies:
-- 1) No single approach fits everyone.
-- 2) Make access prompt and uncomplicated.
-- 3) Attend to multiple needs, not just drug use.
-- 4) Modify requirements as necessary to meet changing needs.
-- 5) DonŐt rush; take time for habits to change.
-- 6) Use behavioral therapies and counseling.
-- 7) Use medications (such as methadone) when necessary.
-- 8) Treat coexisting mental disorders and addictions in an integrated way.
-- 9) Medical detoxification is only a first step that by itself does little to change long-term drug use.
-- 10) Treatment does not need to be voluntary to be effective.
-- 11) Possible drug use during treatment must be monitored continuously.
-- 12) Assess and counsel for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, tuberculosis and other infectious diseases.
-- 13) Recovery can be a long-term process, with relapses leading to multiple efforts.
(Adapted from recommendations by the National Institute on Drug Abuse)

Safety First: A Reality-Based Approach to Teens, Drugs, and Drug Education, by Marsha Rosenbaum (1999; Lindesmith Center, 2233 Lombard St., San Francisco, CA 94123 (415) 921-4987 , 22 pp.) urges adults to be honest with youth about the risks of drug use, and urges young people to think about consequences before acting, to be skeptical.

Shattered Lives, Portraits From AmericaŐs Drug War, by Mikki Norris (2000; Creative Xpressions, P.O. Box 1716, El Cerrito, CA 94530 (415) 753-6602, 118 pp.) describes the impact of lengthy sentences on families and individuals caught in the drug war.

Steve Birdlebough

Drug courts have become a popular way of dealing with drug abuse in the last ten years. Based on experience gained in Florida and other states, the idea that judicial power and prestige can be used to promote recovery from addiction has taken hold in most California counties.

Defendants in drug court usually speak directly to the judge. Although a prosecutor and public defender are present, they are seldom required to examine witnesses or make legal arguments. Most of the dialogue is about the defendantŐs progress in the prescribed recovery activities, which usually include Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings.

Participants learn to write and speak openly, honestly, and respectfully about their feelings, goals, successes, and failures. Those who have been late to meetings, or who have experienced a failure, are encouraged to regain their self-control. Applause is given frequently for successes, and there are ceremonies to mark progress toward a stable freedom from substance dependency (including abstinence from alcohol and methadone).

According to one administrator, accountability for personal behavior is the key ingredient of a drug court program. People who subject their addictions to the courtŐs process learn to become comfortable with the idea of thinking before they act, and this new thought process evolves as the judge consistently talks with them about what they are doing. In large measure, the function of drug court is to help people learn how to think. It requires 18 months to three years to complete a drug court program; during that time, a drug-dependent person establishes a new practice of sobriety that has a spiritual dimension.

Nevertheless, drug courts deal with only a small percentage of controlled substance cases, and they demand weekly court appearances in the early stages of recovery. The schedule may be inconsistent with normal employment for many defendants. Also, court time is quite expensive, and needs to be reserved for those cases that do not respond to ordinary diversion and counseling.

Steve Birdlebough

Wednesday, April 25, 2001 Sacramento

7:30 am FCL Breakfast
with legislative advocates Steve Birdlebough and Ken Larsen.
Location: 926 J Street, 2nd Floor Conference Room, Sacramento
To register: call FCL office no later than April 11 at (916) 443-3734.
Registration fee: No charge

9:00 am. California Interfaith Coalition All-day Briefing and Legislative Visits
Location: Library Galleria, 828 I Street, Sacramento
To register: call California Council of Churches no later than April 11 at (916) 442-5447.
Or download registration form from
Advance registration fee: $35 (includes lunch and information packet)

May 1, 2001 -- Sacramento
Featured speaker: Joe Volk, Executive Secretary, Friends Committee on National Legislation
Reservations and Information: (916) 443-3734