San Mateo County Grand Jury
• 2004-2005
Issue | Background | Findings | Conclusions | Recommendations | Responses | Attachments Proposition 36 Issue
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 4 findings
F1
The Board of Supervisors should take steps to relieve the burden, which Proposition 36 has placed on the Probation Department and the Court. Response: Agree. A significant number of Proposition 36 participants fail to report to Probation let alone attend treatment. It was reported at the June 2005 Workgroup meeting that there were 62 first time violations filed in Redwood City Court and that 42 of those were for not reporting to Probation. To address this situation, the Board of Supervisors recently allocated funding for an additional Probation Officer and a Human Service’s Assessor. The Assessor will meet with participants immediately following their sentencing hearings to explain treatment and the assessment process, instill in them the importance of treatment, clarify program procedures, and reinforce the Court’s expectations. The additional Probation Officer increases the program’s ability to respond more rapidly to Court violations and failures to enroll in programs. Additionally, the Probation Department has recently developed new computer software to streamline documents to the Court. The new software allows Probation Officers to complete approximately seven to ten violations per hour versus two to four violations per hour under the old system. The increased staffing and the software upgrade should allow Probation Officers to spend more time with program participants, resulting in better outcomes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The Board of Supervisors should take steps to relieve the burden which Proposition 36 has placed on the Probation Department and the Court. In August of this year, the Board of Supervisors approved an additional position for a Probation Officer for one fiscal year. We are very appreciative of this additional position. While this will certainly be of assistance, it is not a solution to the workload problems inherent in the Proposition 36 program. The sheer volume of work does not allow the Department to provide effective interventions, and coupled with the problems in the design of the law, it is questionable whether we will have better outcomes with the additional position, due to continuing workload issues involving extraordinarily high caseloads (400+/officer). Our Proposition 36 caseload has increased to approximately 1800 cases on active supervision. Our violation rates remain high, averaging 90 to 100 violations a month. We also continue to have only approximately 30% to 35% of our cases successfully complete the program. The Proposition 36 caseloads are by far the most time consuming, active caseloads within the Department. The Probation Department has taken steps to enhance our computer programs to increase the efficiency in processing the high volume of violations and bench Grand Jury Response ______________________________________________________________________ warrants. However, even with our new technology, we are still unable to process all of our violations and bench warrants. Until new Proposition 36 legislation is passed, (Senate Bill 803) the Probation Department will continue to have excessively high caseloads, and we will most likely be unable to respond to all of the violations and warrants. Additionally, we will be unable take appropriate action on positive drug tests, and we will be unable to provide effective drug treatment interventions.
F2
The Board of Supervisors should request the State legislature to amend Proposition 36 in accordance with Senate Bill 803. Response: Agree. While Senate Bill 803 will likely not pass through the Legislature in 2005, it has the opportunity to address some key elements regarding the effective treatment should it pass next year. The most significant component of SB 803 – appropriation of at least $120,000,000 annually – must remain in this bill or any bill that addresses SACPA. While language stating the intent of the Legislature is helpful, it does not assure the annual appropriation of funds needed to sustain SACPA mandates.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
The Board of Supervisors should request the State legislature to amend Proposition 36 in accordance with Senate Bill 803. We concur.
F3
The Board of Supervisors should continue to urge the Legislature to formulate new legislation should Senate Bill 803 fail, which will reconfigure Proposition 36, and also allow funds to be used for programs proved to be more effective. Response: Agree. The Proposition 36 Workgroup will monitor all legislation related to Proposition 36 and continue to work with the County’s legislative advocates and statewide groups to correct some of the inherent problems with the legislation, most notably funding, the allocation formula and enforcement options.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The Board of Supervisors should continue to urge the Legislature to formulate new legislation should Senate Bill 803 fail, which will reconfigure Proposition 36, and also allow funds to be used for programs proved to be more effective. We concur.
F4
The Sheriff and Probation Department should develop a standardized protocol in cooperation with cities for drug testing that includes random basis testing and frequency of testing. Response: Disagree. The Probation Department is required by the Court to randomly drug test probationers. In the past calendar year, Probation has administered over 25,000 drug tests in the Adult Division. With the additional Probation Officer and efficiencies achieved with the new software, Probation should be able to complete this task without the help of the Sheriff’s Department or other police departments in the County. June 17, 2005 Honorable Norman J. Gatzert Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice and Records 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655 Re: Grand Jury Report : PROPOSITION 36 Dear Judge Gatzert: Summary Proposition 36 was passed by the voters to save dollars by diverting drug users from incarceration into drug treatment. Anyone charged with a nonviolent drug arrest is potentially eligible to enter a treatment program. The Proposition has two major faults. One: there is no incentive such as short term incarceration to participate in the program. Two: a positive drug test cannot be considered a violation of probation. Steps should be taken to relieve the burden placed on the Probation Department and the Court to allow funding to be used for programs which have proved to be more effective in the County. Response Concur with these observations;
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Sheriff and Probation Department should develop a standardized protocol in cooperation with cities for drug testing that includes random basis testing and frequency of testing. By far, the most reliable means of assessing drug usage is by drug testing. Self reports or other subjective assessments are notoriously unreliable and inaccurate. In our judgment, the most effective means of assessing the most basic element of a drug treatment program, i.e., whether or not participants continue to use drugs, would be by using such a testing protocol. The Probation Department would be very pleased to work with all of the Proposition 36 treatment providers who are doing drug testing to jointly develop a randomized, uniform drug testing protocol. We believe this process would be the most effective, rather than working with the Sheriff’s Office and cities, neither of which are responsible for administering criminal justice drug tests. Respectfully submitted, Loren Buddress Chief Probation Officer CC: Board of Supervisors County Manager’s Office
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 7Proposition 36 was well intentioned in requiring community-based treatment for non- violent drug users instead of incarceration. If the program were restricted to first-time offenders without a drug habit, Proposition 36 would probably be successful. However the program is failing to meet its intended goals because: a. Longtime drug users quickly learn to manipulate the Proposition 36 system. They can both avoid jail time and fail to report for probation and/or treatment. They can re-offend and fail to report a second time. Without the possibility of incarceration, Proposition 36 contains no incentive for drug users to commit to participation in the program. b. There is no way to measure satisfactory progress or completion of treatment without mandatory random drug testing, which is neither required nor funded. c. Funding for the more effective residential treatment programs is inadequate. d. Burdens on the courts and on probation departments have increased enough to cause one person interviewed to state that Proposition 36 has moved treatment into the Criminal Justice system. Administrative demands of Proposition 36 cases have forced the Probation Department to necessarily cut back on time spent with more traditional Department demands. The Grand Jury was told, for example, that Probation must limit all phone calls to 40 seconds. e. Recovery is a long process for those who have a long-standing habit. The ninety days required to complete Proposition 36 treatment is only a start because rehabilitation requires a lifestyle change. The Grand Jury learned from interviews and a review of studies that substance and mental health treatment, which reduces the jail population and is cost effective, is far superior to incarceration in rehabilitating drug offenders. However, most informed professionals in the field agree there must be consequences for failure to remain on any program. Jail must be an option if treatment fails. Funding for any drug program must include testing. Proposition 36 has no teeth, or in the words of one judge, is “all carrot and no stick”. The introduction of Senate Bill 803 by Senator Ducheny is a well-conceived effort to correct Proposition 36’s inherent flaws. The Grand Jury strongly supports the passage of this Bill.
No Responses Found 1
Government entities assigned to respond to this report. No response documents have been linked in our database.
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
Elected County Office