DRUG POLICY STUDY FAULTS COUNTY

With A New Drug Law About To Go Into Effect, A Drug Policy Center Has Rated
Bay Area Counties' Readiness. Santa Clara County Received A "D-Plus."

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 proposition 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
- -- up to 6,000 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.

Transition readiness

"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 on
Wednesday.

The initiative's advocates don't like money devoted to probation services
and oppose urine testing as anything but a treatment tool. 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 and harm-reduction programs put it: "D, as in
dangerously unprepared."

The center condemned Santa Clara County 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, loaded 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," said Alice Foster,
chairwoman 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."

Incorrect implication

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.

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 find jobs -- just "help them
get it together."