GRAND JURY: DRUG PROGRAM NEEDS OVERHAUL

Panel Finds Overseer 'Lenient' And 'Ineffective' In Stopping Offenders

A state-mandated drug sentencing program in Ventura County does little
to prevent drug offenders from using again, according to a Grand Jury
report released Monday.

The report calls for a top-down overhaul of the controversial
Proposition 36 program, shifting oversight from Behavioral Health
Department officials to the County Executive Office.

Proposition 36, which was approved by voters in 2001, removes the
threat of jail or prison for first- and second-time nonviolent drug
offenders.

The program is supposed to hold those in the program accountable for
new drug offenses, and failure to respond to treatment can land them
in jail.

But that is not happening under the Behavioral Health Department's
oversight, the Grand Jury said.

The panel found the agency was "lenient" and "ineffective" and in some
cases lost track of people enrolled in the program. As many as 200
people at any given time, or 40 percent of those enrolled, are
"considered to be lost from the program, referred to as 'on the
tarmac,' " according to the report.

The Grand Jury issues reports on various government agencies and
activities. The reports are meant to offer guidance and do not have
the force of law.

Behavioral Health officials sought for comment did not return calls by
press time Monday.

Law enforcement agencies, meanwhile, applauded the Grand Jury's call
for changes.

'The Program Is Failing'

"All their recommendations need to be taken seriously, because the
program is failing," Chief Deputy District Attorney Michael Frawley
said. "You've got a lot of people out there who are doing drugs quite
freely, and the consequences are put off way too long."

Highlights of the Grand Jury's nine recommendations
follow:

* Shift oversight to the county's Executive Office, with Behavioral
Health solely offering recommendations for treatment. For the past two
years, Behavioral Health has managed the program, overseeing spending,
client assessments and tracking, drug testing and compliance.

* County officials should review whether repeat drug offenders are
given too many chances to clean up their acts. For instance, a policy
that will take effect July 1 allows five positive drug tests before
triggering a strike on a client's record of compliance. After three
strikes, a participant would be removed from the program. The Grand
Jury recommends more swift and severe consequences for repeat offenders.

* Treatment and law enforcement agencies, which are often at odds over
how to run the program, should share information regarding each
participant's compliance and criminal history. Behavioral Health
officials have said drug tests should be used for treatment, not
punishment, and have refused to share test results with the Probation
Agency and the courts. This lack of cooperation and coordination among
agencies cripples the effectiveness of the program, Grand Jury foreman
Richard S. Hawley said.

Long-Standing Disagreement

The report brings to light the long-standing disagreement between law
enforcement and drug-treatment advocates over how best to deal with
drug offenders.

The initiative was passed by 61 percent of California voters but was
hotly opposed by law enforcement officials, including Ventura County
Sheriff Bob Brooks. Brooks and others have said the law takes away a
valuable tool -- the threat of incarceration -- from the courts and
undercuts adequate monitoring of chronic drug offenders, usually
handled by probation.

"It's no different than dealing with children in a classroom," Brooks
said. "You need rewards and you need punishments."

Probation Officer Cal Remington agreed.

"If people are given the opportunity at treatment rather than
incarceration, we expect them to adhere to the rules," Remington said.
"If they don't, there need to be limits as to how often they can fail
to meet their obligations and stay in the program."