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."