DATE: August 1, 2000
TO: Board of Supervisors
SUBJECT: Resolution In Opposition To Proposition 36, The Substance Abuse And Crime Prevention Act

SUMMARY:
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act has qualified for the November 7, 2000 ballot. This state-wide initiative would change the criminal justice system by requiring offenders of nonviolent drug possession/use offenses to participate in funded treatment programs and would prohibit them from being sentenced to state prison or county jail. Although funding for treatment programs is critical to local jurisdictions, this act would be detrimental to the Drug Court program.

This action will adopt a resolution in opposition to Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act.

Recommendation:
CHAIRWOMAN DIANNE JACOB, SHERIFF BILL KOLENDER AND JUDGE JAMES MILLIKEN:

Adopt a resolution in opposition to Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act and give permission for the San Diego County Board of Supervisors to be listed in opposition to the Act.

Fiscal Impact:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this Board letter.

BACKGROUND:
The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act has qualified for the November 2000 ballot. This state-wide initiative would change the criminal justice system by requiring offenders of nonviolent drug possession/use offenses to participate in funded treatment programs and would prohibit them from being sentenced to state prison or county jail. Sixty million dollars would be allocated in fiscal year 2000-2001 by the State into a trust fund for drug treatment programs. Subsequent year funding through fiscal year 2005-2006 would be $120 million annually.

San Diego County's Drug Court program has been a model for treating, testing and rehabilitating drug offenders, since the program's inception in North County in January of 1997. This Board has made it a priority to ensure the continued funding and expansion of the current Drug Court program. From January 1, 1997 to May 30, 2000, 1,345 offenders have been admitted into the program. 97% of the graduates have had no new convictions while in treatment and preliminary studies have shown the recidivism rate (defined as new convictions) to be only 15% after graduation.

The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act would be detrimental to our efforts with the Drug Court program. It would undermine the most effective component of the program - the ability of the Drug Court Team and Judge to sanction participants to custody for failing a drug test. If the Act were to be approved, an offender can only be sentenced to jail if they repeatedly fail the treatment program. Furthermore, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act does not include funding for drug testing the participants while in treatment. Without testing for drugs and alcohol, there is no means to fully ensure that participants remain clean and sober during treatment.

Californians United Against Drug Abuse is the campaign that will be leading the effort against Proposition 36. This campaign is supported by law enforcement, drug treatment professionals, healthcare leaders, crime victims and taxpayers. The message of the campaign is clear - Proposition 36 is a dangerous and misleading initiative that undermines California's legitimate drug treatment programs.

Additional funding from the State is critical to supporting the County's current Drug Court program and allowing the County to expand our services to include all drug offenders in our criminal justice system. Unfortunately, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act undermines our efforts to rehabilitate drug offenders, restricts accountability and will reduce the effectiveness of Drug Court. This action will adopt a resolution in opposition to Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. We urge your support.

Respectfully Submitted,

DIANNE JACOB
Chairwoman