Pubdate: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
Source: Press-Enterprise (CA)
Copyright: 2001 The Press-Enterprise Company
Contact:  http://www.mapinc.org/media/830
Website: http://www.inlandempireonline.com/
Author: Mike Kataoka, The Press-Enterprise
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm 
(Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act)

COUNTY'S PROP. 36 PLAN FAULTED

A National Policy Group Gives Mediocre Grades To Local Efforts To
Implement The New Diversion Law.

Four days before Prop. 36 takes effect, a national institute pushing
drug-policy reforms gave Riverside County a "C" for its efforts to begin
providing treatment for some drug offenders.

San Bernardino County got the only "F" among the state's 11 largest
counties graded by the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, while
San Francisco County topped the list with an "A." Both Inland counties
were downgraded for a "criminal justice approach" to dealing with Prop.
36 cases instead of relying more on the opinions of treatment providers. 

Prop. 36, passed overwhelmingly by voters last November and taking
effect Sunday, requires treatment instead of incarceration for first-
and second-time nonviolent drug offenders. 

State officials estimate that Prop. 36 will divert about 37,000
nonviolent drug users from jails and prisons, saving more than $1.5
billion over five years. 

The Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation, a national institute that
advocates alternatives to locking up drug offenders, issued the report
cards Wednesday in Sacramento. 

The foundation also rated San Mateo, Alameda, Orange, Los Angeles,
Fresno, Santa Clara, San Diego and Sacramento counties. 

Inland judicial and treatment officials predict that the two counties
each would have about 3,000 new cases the first year and have worked out
plans to deal with them. 

Lindesmith officials and others reviewed the 11 large counties'
implementation plans filed with the state Department of Alcohol and Drug
Program. Those counties are home to more than 75 percent of California's
population. 

Wednesday's grades are somewhat surprising considering that Riverside
and San Bernardino counties both have successful drug court programs in
operation. 

Riverside County Superior Court Judge Richard Fields, who presides over
the Hall of Justice drug court and will handle Prop. 36 cases, said the
county deserves better than a "C" for all the work officials have done. 

"We feel we already have a track record for treatment," Fields said. 

Neither he nor anyone else involved in Prop. 36 implementation were
contacted by Lindesmith to explain the extensive training, coordination
and community contact going on in Riverside County, Fields said 

"It seems that they're lacking information, really critical information,
in making their determination," he said. 

The grades were based on how much money each county has allocated for
treatment, available treatment options, the role of public-health
professionals and the level of community involvement in planning for
Prop. 36. 

Counties were graded in each of the four categories with an overall
letter grade based on the average. Extra credit was given to four
counties, including Riverside, that submitted their district attorney's
charging guidelines. 

"Most Californians live someplace with a decent plan for Prop. 36
implementation," said Glenn Backes, director of health and harm
reduction for Lindesmith. 

San Bernardino County is a glaring exception, he said, contending that
officials there have ignored the will of the voters with an
implementation plan likely to fail. 

But Nancy Stevenson, a county official who oversees drug-treatment
courts, said agencies responsible for implementing Prop. 36 are "very
positive they'll make it work." 

San Bernardino County has budgeted 57 percent of its $7.4 million in
Prop. 36 funds to treatment, far less than the 83 percent that treatment
officials suggest statewide. 

The Lindesmith report cards say Riverside is closer to the ideal,
committing 82 percent of its $5.9 million share to treatment. 

Priya Haji, a former treatment center director and a member of San Mateo
County's Prop. 36 Implementation Task Force, said studies have shown
that "the best approach to treatment is to allow clinicians to make the
decisions" rather than criminal-justice representatives. 

Both Inland counties scored poorly in this so-called "docs or cops"
category, submitting plans that seem to favor probation officers over
health professionals when assessing Prop. 36 defendants, Lindesmith's
Backes said. 

"Treatment professionals bring the right tools to the problem and make
communities safer by using the right tools," he said. 

Riverside and San Bernardino counties got failing grades in the category
of community voices, with neither implementation plan mentioning any
efforts to inform the public about Prop. 36 or to seek its comments. 

Fields said the focus has been on "educating ourselves," and it is
premature to take the Prop. 36 message to the community. 

Each county got its highest grade in the category of treatment options.
Riverside got an "A-" for the diversity of its services, and San
Bernardino, which is said to lack a broad range of options, got a "C."
- ---
MAP posted-by: Doc-Hawk