COUNTY DRUG TREATMENT PLAN GETS MIXED REVIEW

SACRAMENTO -- Advocates of Proposition 36 on Wednesday gave Riverside
County an overall grade of C for its plan to treat nonviolent drug
offenders instead of putting them in jail.

Riverside County was one of 11 of California's most populous counties whose
plans for the state's new drug treatment experiment beginning July 1 were
graded by the Lindesmith Center-Drug Policy Foundation.

This organization, which advocates the treatment alternative nationwide,
handed out grades to counties that are home to 75 percent of the state's
population.

The initiative's proponents said they were very pleased that statewide an
estimated 37,000 nonviolent drug users with one or two offenses are about
to begin getting treatment.

'Great opportunity': "I think this is a great opportunity," said Rocky
Hill, who operates a drug treatment company in Temecula.

He spoke by phone after a press conference as did Malcolm Curry, Riverside
County chief deputy probation officer.

"We are quite well prepared" to carry out Proposition 36, said Curry, who
hadn't seen the report card. The initiative approved by 61 percent of the
voters in the November election required each county to develop a plan and
submit it to the state.

The planning and other preparation work has been funded by $60 million
required by the initiative, which also directs the state to provide
counties $120 million a year to run their programs for five years.

The report card released Wednesday graded counties in four categories, with
Riverside receiving an A-minus for proposing to provide a wide range of
treatment options.

Poor grade: The county drew an F because of inadequate community
involvement in preparing its plan and a B for giving law enforcement too
much money.

The report card gave the county extra credit because District Attorney
Grover Trask's office developed and shared with advocates guidelines for
deciding who would be referred to the new treatment program.

But the county also got a D for giving law enforcement too much influence
in the new program at the expense of health professionals.