Pubdate: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 Source: Ventura County Star (CA) Copyright: 2004, The E.W. Scripps Co. Contact: http://www.staronline.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/479 Author: Jessica Keating, and Tamara Koehler Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prop36.htm (Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act) or 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." - --- MAP posted-by: Richard Lake