The Real Cost of Prisons Weblog

The program is clearly worthy of emulation and worthy of greater support from the State Legislature and the localities. At the same time, however, the report makes clear that the program would benefit from more effective coordination among governmental departments and localities, as well as improved and expanded treatment regimens. Given the impressive findings so far, Californians would be wise to help the program reach its full potential.


Long Beach Press Telegram

Article Launched: 4/06/2006 12:00 AM

Passing the drug test

Prop. 36 shows benefits of treating addicts, instead of jail time.

A UCLA medical school study shows that California was wise to end its addiction to imprisoning non-violent drug offenders. Treatment costs less and works better. Proposition 36, which voters approved in 2000 to divert addicts from jail and into rehab, has saved the state $1.5 billion. Since the initiative took effect, 140,000 people have gotten get-out-of-jail-free cards and taken a shot and getting sober.

There is reason to pay attention to the success - and keep it coming. Funding for Proposition 36 is expected to expire June 30. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposed budget thankfully earmarks $120 million in fiscal 2006-07, and the Legislature ought to approve his request to save taxpayers money and, more importantly, because it works.

Voters deserve all the credit. They did what politicians - possibly out of fear of looking soft on crime - couldn't or wouldn't do: help drug addicts clean up their acts with the help of therapists and medical professionals. No one should do hard time for being addicted to hard drugs, unless they commit other crimes.

Addicts often cannot put down the powder, the needle or the pipe because they use street drugs to self-medicate mental illness, chemical imbalances, emotional distress, physical abuse and other afflictions that tend to run in families. Combine that with the difficulty of obtaining health insurance and it becomes a real challenge for them to live drug-free. Those who exploit these weaknesses by selling drugs to addicts are the ones who belong in prison.
Proposition 36 provides money to help troubled souls beholden to meth, crack, heroin, cocaine and other poisons find a better way. About 60,000 addicts should graduate from the initiative-funded program by the end of its fifth full year, but it's the voters who should toss their caps in the air for helping so many people.

The Associated Press State & Local Wire

April 5, 2006 Wednesday 8:13 AM GMT

SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL

HEADLINE: Study: Drug treatment much cheaper alternative to prison time

BYLINE: By LOUISE CHU, Associated Press Writer

DATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO


The state saves more than twice the amount of money that it spends on nonviolent drug offenders who are sentenced to treatment rather than prison, according to a new study.

The report by UCLA's Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior found that taxpayers saved nearly $2.50 for every dollar invested in drug treatment in the first 30 months since implementation of a 2000 law allowing drug treatment as an alternative to imprisonment. Savings further increased if offenders actually completed their programs, with taxpayers saving nearly $4 per dollar spent, according to the study that was be released Wednesday.

The total savings in the first 30 months was more than $173 million, said researchers, who factored in money saved from such areas as housing inmates, probation, parole, re-arrests and future court fees.

Proposition 36 the so-called Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act allocates $120 million per year for nonviolent first- and second-time offenders to enroll in drug treatment programs.

Treatment advocates said the cost savings reported in the study would only increase over time, as the number of repeat offenders decreased after successful treatment.

"Even in that least efficient year, taxpayers realized enormous cost savings," said Daniel Abrahamson of the Drug Policy Alliance who co-authored Proposition 36. Advocates have projected the program would eventually save an average of $250 million per year.

The study also recommended improvements to the program to boost effectiveness, such as greater collaboration between state and local governments, better monitoring of offenders after treatment and improved screening methods to determine who's eligible.

"The cost savings are dramatic, but with increased system accountability measures and improved offender management ... they could rise even higher,"
study co-author M. Douglas Anglin said.

John Lovell, legislative counsel for the California Narcotics Officers Association, which opposed Proposition 36, said the recommendations support their view that the program currently lacks that accountability.

The majority of offenders eligible for treatment do not successfully complete it, making them more likely to re-offend, Lovell said, pointing to a 2004 UCLA study that showed only 24 percent of offenders ordered to get treatment actually completed it.

"We agree that if you have successful treatment, you will achieve cost savings. But the key there is successful treatment," he said.

With funding for Proposition 36 set to expire this year, several lawmakers have proposed legislation to renew the funding while applying certain restrictions, such as adding a short-term jail option for certain offenders.

Lovell said the jail option, as well as follow-up drug testing and probation, is what's needed to make the program fully effective.

Dave Fratello, another co-author of Proposition 36, said such restrictions would fundamentally change the program.

"There's really no rationale for making the changes they want, except to give in to law enforcement interests who always wanted this to be a punishment model rather than a treatment model," he said.