Pubdate: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 Source: San Jose Mercury News (CA) Copyright: 2001 San Jose Mercury News Contact: http://www.sjmercury.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/390 Author: Ed Pope JAIL DAYS NUMBERED FOR NON-VIOLENT DRUG OFFENDERS SAN JOSE, Calif. - With only days to go before the state must begin diverting non-violent drug offenders from jail to treatment, the new law's major advocates like what they see in the Bay Area _ except in Santa Clara County. Bragging rights for being most prepared go to San Francisco, San Mateo County isn't far behind, and Alameda is above average, but Santa Clara is barely passing, according to The Lindesmith Center Drug Policy Foundation. That conclusion was blasted by Santa Clara officials, who say the criteria used in assigning "grades" to individual counties have little to do with how effective their programs will be. The Washington, D.C.-based center, which was one of the principal backers of Proposition 36, evaluated the readiness of the state's 11 most populous counties to tackle the new system, which takes effect Sunday. The measure was approved by 61 percent of California voters last November, and prescribes treatment for first- and second-offense drug users, most of whom would have gone to jail or prison. An estimated 37,000 offenders each year in California will get treatment under the initiative _ an estimated 1,700 to 2,300 of them in Santa Clara County. The law sets aside $120 million a year for five years to support rehabilitation of abusers, and the center has determined that counties should devote at least 83 percent of their allotment to treatment. "Essentially what we're looking for in our evaluation is how well each county is making a transition from a criminal-justice approach to a public-health approach," said Lindesmith spokeswoman Shayna Samuels Wednesday. The initiative's advocates don't like money devoted to probation services and oppose urine testing as anything but a treatment tool. And the Lindesmith center also has no official capacity in implementing the law. On the center's "report card," San Francisco got an "A," San Mateo an "A-minus" and Alameda a "B." Santa Clara got a "D-plus." Or, as Glenn Backes, the center's national director of health harm reduction programs put it: "D, as in dangerously unprepared." The center socked Santa Clara because it has devoted only 70 percent of its funds to direct treatment, didn't appoint a public health or treatment group as its lead agency, didn't hold community forums or specifically invite minorities into the planning process and, in Lindesmith's view, laded its planning process with people from criminal justice. Santa Clara County officials came out spitting. "I don't think the report card reflects the uniqueness of our community or the quality of the plan we're putting in place," shot back Alice Foster, chair of the county planning committee. Beyond treatment, she said, the county is devoting funds to literacy classes, health needs and vocational training, "because we know that a person with a substance abuse problem comes with other types of life issues." "It's very inaccurate," said Superior Court Judge Stephen Manley, who has headed up the county's drug court for years. "Anyone has a right to criticize, but what's in the report should be correct." The implication that funding here has gone to the courts or criminal justice is incorrect, officials said. Only 9 percent goes to new probation services. The district attorney and public defender also have agreed to a non-adversarial approach when offenders enter the system. "We have as high a level of collaboration as any county in the state," said John Larson, spokesman for the county Department of Alcohol and Drug Services. "Our department is . . . making the decisions on the level of treatment, where clients are referred and what ancillary services they get." And the county has created something unique in the state, according to Manley and Foster,a system of case managers who will help clients get into treatment, take medications, get housing and jobs _ just "help them get it together." "We didn't get credit for that," Foster snapped. On the other hand, San Mateo County drug and alcohol coordinator, was delighted with her county's "A-minus." "We did everything we could to protect as much money as we could for treatment because we know we don't have enough to treat those folks" _ the estimated 1,300 who will qualify each year. "I'm excited. We're ready for the first client to come through the door." - --- MAP posted-by: Derek