Office of the Charles Middleton District Attorney*

One of the statistics that leads us to conclude that Proposition 36 has resulted in increased crime is the increase in drug offenses. A successful program should bring about a reduction in drug offenses. A second and even a third drug possession conviction will not disqualify someone from continued eligibility for Proposition 36 treatment, since the statute provides that a defendant may have up to three drug related violations before being terminated from the Proposition 36 program. May, 2003 statistics show 687 of the persons currently sentenced to Proposition 36 terms have more than one case. This means many persons who have been sentenced to Proposition 36 have committed additional crimes while out of custody. Another important indicator is the increase in the type of crimes that are common to drug users. There has been an increase in property crimes such as burglary, check fraud and credit card theft. These are all common methods for drug offenders to finance their drug habit. Police agencies report that crime is up in areas frequented by narcotics addicts such as residential motels. Police officers report that drug users mock the Proposition 36 program, calling it a "get out of jail free card". There is great frustration in the law enforcement community because both officers and drug users know that the Proposition 36 program doesn't have any "teeth". Police agencies and probation officers report an increase in attempts by defendants to cheat on drug tests. This indicates defendants are continuing to use drugs even while they are in the treatment program. RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDING #4 Funding is inadequate to support sufficient residential and intensive outpatient needs. Agrees with Finding It was planned when enacted that the cost of the Proposition 36 program would be funded with state money that would decline annually until the year 2005/2006 when the counties would have to pick up the entire cost of the program. Approximately 4000 defendants per year are sentenced to Proposition 36 and approximately $10.3 million is slated to be spent on the program in 2003/2004. $8 million of that money is scheduled to be spent by the Health Care Agency on treatment and related administrative costs. This amount will not be sufficient to provide intensive treatment for the thousands of serious drug users in the program. We need to identify which defendants are the most likely to benefit from treatment and direct the available resources accordingly. ٠, RESPONSE TO GRAND JURY FINDING #5 County departments (Probation, District Attorney, Health Care Agency and Public Defender) involved with Proposition 36 are absorbing additional cost shortfalls not currently included in SACPA cost projections. Agrees to Finding The District Attorney's Office continues to partially absorb costs that are not covered by the funding received. Since funding for the District Attorney's Office was reduced for 2003/2004, we anticipate an increase in costs that will have to be absorbed. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF GRAND JURY RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION #1 Assess the factors related to Probation Violations during participation in Proposition 36 and implement corrective measures. The Recommendation has been implemented Deputy District Attorneys have been assigned to prosecute probation violations in Proposition 36 cases since the law went into effect on July 1, 2001. These deputies have been assessing the factors related to probation violations as they are reported. The District Attorney's Office takes an aggressive posture in prosecuting any violations reported. The process is very burdensome and time consuming because the law provides for three violations of probation involving drug use before one is subject to termination from the program. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION #2 Continue efforts to increase treatment and provisions for expediting a timely assessment of the defendant to achieve immediate placement into treatment following sentencing. The Recommendation has been Implemented The District Attorney's Office does not have any control over the type of treatment into which a defendant is placed after sentencing. However, we do support the goal of getting defendants assessed and into treatment immediately after sentencing. This office continues to make every effort to get defendants placed into treatment as soon as possible following sentencing. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION #4 Examine county and city arrest and incarceration records and statistical data of persons enrolled in Proposition 36 court to determine the program's effectiveness relative to reducing criminal involvement in serious crimes. ٠, . . The Recommendation has been Implemented The District Attorney's Office supports statistical evaluation of the program's effectiveness. Arrest and incarceration records of persons arrested for drug offenses are examined daily prior to their qualification for, and enrollment in, the Proposition 36 program. Thereafter, their progress is monitored by Deputy District Attorneys staffing the courts. In addition the success rate of the program has been followed and reviewed on a monthly basis. As additional time passes, we expect to get more information on success and recidivism rates which will tell us whether or not we are experiencing any degree of success with the program. RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION #5 Provide costs for current year (2002/2003) and projected cost for future years (two), for departments for beds and personnel to support Proposition 36. The Recommendation has been Implemented The District Attorney's Office has continued to provide projections of our office's costs for participation in the program and will continue to do so. Even though our funding has been reduced by 17% for 2003/2004, we will continue to staff Proposition 36 courtrooms and provide eligibility assessments for 2003/2004. We project that the costs to the District Attorney's Office will not change significantly in the fiscal year 2004/2005.