COUNTIES GRADED ON PLANS TO IMPLEMENT SWEEPING DRUG TREATMENT INITIATIVE

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California's 58 counties are lined up to implement a
sweeping drug treatment initiative Sunday - but they're all pointing in
different directions.

A survey of the 11 most populous counties showed a wide variation in the
money the counties will devote to treatment and the range of treatment
options they will provide as they comply with Proposition 36.

The voter-approved initiative will send nonviolent first- and second-time
drug offenders to treatment instead of prison or jail starting July 1.

But the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation review released Wednesday
criticized some counties for relying more heavily on probation officers
than on treatment providers to oversee offenders. It panned counties
including Santa Clara, Sacramento and San Bernardino for diverting too much
money from treatment programs.

"They want to completely remove the courts and probation and law
enforcement from the equation," said David Wert, a spokesman for San
Bernardino County, which received the worst grade.

The nonprofit drug policy reform organization also gave poor grades to
counties it said aren't providing methadone treatment for heroin addicts.
However, San Diego County officials said the center's review is flawed
because they will indeed provide methadone treatment to combat a heroin
overdose problem second only to San Francisco's.

The organization graded the 11 counties, which together encompass 75
percent of the state's population, on four areas based on the
implementation plans the counties submitted last month: the money they're
spending on treatment versus the money going for probation or other
supervision; the number and variety of treatment options; the split in
reliance on law enforcement versus treatment professionals; and the amount
of community involvement in the counties' planning.

San Francisco, which has an existing policy favoring treatment over
incarceration was awarded the highest grade, an "A." Yolo County Public
Defender Barry Melton, who sits on his statewide association's Proposition
36 oversight committee, credited San Francisco County District Attorney,
Terence Hallinan for his progressive attitude.

San Mateo was awarded an "A-". Prija Haji, a member of the county's
Proposition 36 task force, said the county is offering "a whole continuum
of treatment options," and has seen strong support from probation officers
there.

Alameda and Orange counties received "Bs", Los Angeles a "B-", Fresno and
Riverside counties were given "Cs," Santa Clara and San Diego counties a
"D+", and Sacramento (D). San Bernardino County came in last with a failing
grade.

Sacramento and San Bernardino counties were criticized for devoting too
much of their share of state-allocated Proposition 36 money to probation
supervision instead of treatment. Sacramento will use 54 percent for
treatment and 46 percent for probation, while San Bernardino will use 57
percent for treatment and 43 percent for treatment.

"The strongest predictor if whether they got a good grade or not was
money," said Glenn Backes, the center's national director of Health and
Harm Reduction. "The money's been put in the wrong place."

However, Sacramento County Supervisor Roger Dickinson said much of the
probation money will be related to treatment.

"They see money going to probation and think it's more of the same old
thing," Dickinson said. "It wouldn't be the more traditional 'I'm from the
Probation Department and I'm here keeping tabs on you."'

The Lindesmith Center was a key backer of the initiative adopted by 61
percent of voters in the November election. Its report cards amount to "an
arbitrary ranking" based on what it feels counties' funding and treatment
priorities should be, said Bob Mimura, executive director of Los Angeles
County's Criminal Justice Coordination Committee.

San Francisco, Orange, Los Angeles and Riverside counties were given "extra
credit" because their district attorneys publicly disclosed how they intend
to charge drug offenders, which will determine whether they are eligible
for treatment under the voter initiative.