EFFORT TO AID DRUG USERS CRITICIZED

Ventura County Grand Jury says Prop. 36 has been badly mishandled
locally, resulting in a threat to public health and safety. D.A. agrees.

A voter-mandated program that steers drug offenders to treatment
instead of jail has been so badly managed that it has "compromised
public safety and health," according to a scathing report released by
the Ventura County Grand Jury on Monday.

The 93-page report echoes observations made over the last year by
local law enforcement officials, who say that the county's Proposition
36 drug treatment effort may have contributed to an increase in crime.

"Everyone in law enforcement wants to see drug offenders treated and
change their behavior," said Dist. Atty. Greg Totten. "But if you
strictly focus on a touchy-feely social services treatment model, it
doesn't take into account the danger these people can pose."

Officials of the county's Behavioral Health Department, which runs the
3-year-old program, were unavailable for comment Monday. In the past,
they have deemed the program an overall success, saying that initial
cure rates seemed low because substance abusers new to treatment
frequently backslide.

Proposition 36 was passed by statewide initiative in November 2000. It
requires counties to divert many nonviolent drug offenders into
treatment but allows some latitude in how to do so.

According to the grand jury, the behavioral health agency has put the
best face on a dismal record, becoming "the lone agency continuing to
declare itself victorious in the county's war on drugs."

Program officials have deliberately distorted statistics, the report
contended.

"This apparent mishandling of discretion reflects badly on Prop. 36
and it reflects badly on Ventura County," it said.

The grand jury criticized the program for allegedly neglecting to
compile reliable data, failing to do enough random testing and
refusing to fully share with law enforcement agencies the results of
tests that have been done.

Under the law, offenders in the program face jail if they test
positive for drugs three times -- but the grand jury and local police
say they're not promptly informed when that happens.

"Here we can have five or 10 dirty tests before a person is even
reported back to the court," Totten said.

Such criticisms have been voiced by prosecutors elsewhere, said Judy
Appel, an attorney who works in Oakland for the Drug Policy Alliance,
an advocacy group that campaigned for Proposition 36.

"They want to squeeze it into a criminal justice framework, with lots
of court dates, as much disclosure of confidential information as
possible and a big hammer to swing over their heads," she said.

For example, law enforcement officials object to the county's refusal
to disclose incriminating test results that appear in an offender's
first 30 days in the program.

But such refusal meets the standards of both the law and common sense,
Appel said.

"At least 50% of these people never have been able to access treatment
before," she said. "It takes more than one time for most people to get
off drugs. The fact that Ventura County has set it up so individuals
have a bit of time to get settled into their treatment makes all the
public health sense in the world, but it's threatening to
prosecutors."

For their part, police in Ventura County say local crime rates are
elevated in part because drug offenders have not been incarcerated as
they once were.

"In virtually every community in the county, theft is going up,"
Totten said, acknowledging that the link with Proposition 36 is
"anecdotal."

The grand jury recommended that the program be removed from the
control of behavioral health officials and placed in the hands of the
county executive officer. It also called for more frequent drug
testing and immediate disclosure of results to law enforcement.