FINAL BILL REPORT

2SHB 2986

PARTIAL VETO

                                  C 275 L 90

BYHouse Committee on Appropriations (originally sponsored by Representative Appelwick)

Making technical corrections to the alcohol and controlled substances abuse act.

House Committe on Judiciary

Rereferred House Committee on Appropriations

Senate Committee on Ways & Means

SYNOPSIS AS ENACTED

BACKGROUND:

In 1989, the Legislature passed the Alcohol and Controlled Substances Abuse Act.  This act made comprehensive changes to many laws related to alcohol and drugs.

Several appropriations were made to governmental agencies for a variety of programs related to alcohol and drug abuse.  In some instances, money appropriated under the act has been used by agencies to supplant previous expenditures from other revenue sources.

One of the appropriations in the 1989 act was to the Office of the Administrator for the Courts for the "treatment alternatives to street crimes" program.  The money is to be used to provide services in domestic relations cases arising under laws dealing with marriage dissolutions, nonparental child custody actions, or domestic violence actions.

The 1989 act also required the Legislative Budget Committee (LBC) to prepare a plan for studying the effectiveness of various portions of the act.  Elements of the act to be studied include 1) institution-based drug testing, 2) the juvenile offender structured residential program, 3) the state-wide drug prosecution assistance program, 4) community mobilization, 5) drug and alcohol abuse prevention and early intervention in schools, and 6) maternity care support services for alcohol and drug abusing pregnant women.  By October 1, 1989, the affected agencies were to have submitted to the LBC their plans for the anticipated implementation of the programs.  By December 1, 1898, the LBC was to have submitted to the fiscal committees of the Legislature its plans for the study of the effectiveness of these programs.  The LBC has expressed concern that the number and scope of the required studies will exceed its capacity to do adequate analysis.

SUMMARY:

The 1989 Alcohol and Controlled Substances Abuse Act is amended in three areas.

First, federal money must be used to replace state money appropriated under the act and state money appropriated under the act may not be used to supplant money from other sources. Specific prohibitions against supplanting are imposed on two programs administered by the Superintendent of Public Instruction. These programs are school district substance abuse awareness programs and secondary school security programs.  In each of these programs, money must be used to increase program services beyond the levels provided in the 1988-1989 school year.  The Superintendent of Public Instruction is allowed to use a portion of its appropriation to monitor the education and intervention programs in school districts.

Second, the appropriation for the treatment alternatives to street crime program is extended to cover cases involving the determination of parentage and cases involving child abuse.

Third, the LBC study provisions of the 1989 act are amended.  The requirements that affected agencies prepare a description of program implementation and that LBC submit a plan for program study, are removed.  The Department of Social and Health Services is directed to study the effectiveness of the juvenile offenders structured residential program.  The Superintendent of Public Instruction is directed to contract with an independent entity to have a study done of drug and alcohol abuse early intervention in the schools.  The LBC is directed to review and monitor these two studies.

VOTES ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      House 98   0

      Senate    45     0

EFFECTIVE:June 7, 1990

Partial Veto Summary:  The veto removes an express requirement that federal money must be used to replace state money appropriated under the 1989 act.  The veto also removes a general statement applicable to all programs under the 1989 act that state money may not be used to supplant other funds.  Supplanting prohibitions applicable to specific programs are not affected by the veto.  (See VETO MESSAGE)