Study Criticizes Readiness for Diversion Law

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.”

Medina said that even before Proposition 36 passed, the county had a drug court that balanced enforcement and treatment. The county is expanding treatment programs run by private, nonprofit groups, he said.

Santa Clara County officials were not immediately available for comment. A spokeswoman for Sacramento County disputed the foundation’s criticism.

“It was an unfair assessment of county plans,” said Toni Moore, director of the Sacramento County Alcohol and Drug Administration. “I did not anticipate a high rating from this group because they wanted to make an example out of us publicly.”

At a news conference in Sacramento to announce the center’s findings, state Senate President Pro Tem John Burton (D-San Francisco) praised the counties that received good marks and put the counties at the bottom of the list on notice.

“The Legislature is watching,” he said.

Glenn Backes, director of Health and Harm Reduction for the Lindesmith Center, touted the ultimate benefits of Proposition 36, while criticizing some counties for not directing more resources to treatment programs.

“We can see there were political forces that wanted the money for their own programs,” Backes said.

Dorsey Nunn, program director of Legal Services for Prisoners With Children, a nonprofit organization based in San Francisco, accused some counties of keeping African Americans and Latinos out of the loop while drafting strategies to cope with the new law. Nearly half of the counties received less than a “C” in the category related to community input.

The Lindesmith Center based its grades on information taken from the Proposition 36 implementation plans that counties filed with the Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs.

T. Maria Caudill, of the department of Drug and Alcohol Policy, defended the freedom the counties had in deciding how to use their share of the $120 million set aside for Proposition 36.

Caudill said the first year of the new law will be used as a test run. “There are way too many unknowns to make any kind of qualitative statements,” said Caudill.

*

Times staff writers Scott Gold and Tony Perry contributed to this story.