STUDY CRITICIZES READINESS FOR DIVERSION LAW

Prop. 36: Group Says Four Counties Aren't Prepared To Treat Drug Users
Rather Than Imprison Them.

Only days before California begins directing nonviolent drug offenders to
treatment centers rather than jail, a drug policy group said Wednesday that
four of the state's largest counties are dangerously unprepared to handle
the impact of Proposition 36.

Although much of the state appears to be ready for the new initiative, the
Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation criticized San Bernardino,
Sacramento, San Diego and Santa Clara counties for either not directing
enough money to treatment or offering few treatment options.

Additionally, all four counties relied too heavily on law enforcement
officials--rather than public health experts--to develop their Proposition
36 plans, according to the foundation, which helped draft the initiative
approved by voters in November.

"San Bernardino County . . . has designed an implementation plan that is
likely to fail," the foundation said in its report, giving San Bernardino
the only grade of F among the counties studied. "There is no commitment to
quality treatment, but rather a bolstering of criminal justice programs."

Officials from San Bernardino County and other counties strongly disputed
the foundation's findings.

The harsh remarks were issued even as the foundation found that overall the
state's treatment centers and county judicial systems are ready for the
initiative, which becomes effective Sunday. The foundation examined 11
counties that constitute 75% of the state's population.

For example, Los Angeles County, with 30% to 40% of the estimated 60,000
drug defendants eligible statewide for treatment, was rated better than
most counties in providing money for treatment and treatment options.

"Los Angeles County allocated a good portion of its budget to treatment and
is using preexisting, community treatment assessment centers as an integral
part of [its] implementation plan," said the New York-based foundation,
which advocates reform of the nation's drug policies.

David Wert, a spokesman for San Bernardino County, said it has an effective
drug policy that requires active law enforcement in addition to treatment.

"Clearly the people who wrote this report card don't think that the courts
or law enforcement should be involved in the drug problem anymore," Wert
said. "In San Bernardino County it has been proven that if you offer people
the option of treatment, it is only successful if they know that they will
face legal consequences if they don't cooperate."

That approach, Wert said, has given the county a 70% success rate in
deterring drug offenders from returning to court on new criminal charges.

San Diego County, the second largest in California, was also given poor
marks by the foundation for its Proposition 36 readiness. Although offering
many different treatment services, the foundation said, San Diego is
risking a "potentially deadly discrimination" by denying Proposition 36
clients access to methadone maintenance even though the county has the
second-highest rate of heroin overdose deaths in California.

But a San Diego County official disputed the notion that the county was
unprepared for Proposition 36.

"We are ready," said Al Medina, alcohol and drug program administrator for
San Diego County's Health and Human Services Agency. "Our view is that we
have developed a model that works."