STUDY: PROP. 36 HAS GOOD FIRST YEAR

Treatment-Not-Jails Plan Improving Health, Saving Money, Co-Author Says

California's treatment-not-jails law for nonviolent drug offenders placed
30,469 people in treatment programs during its first year, according to its
first official audit.

University of California, Los Angeles researchers -- chosen by the state to
track results of Proposition 36 of 2000, the Substance Abuse and Crime
Prevention Act -- reported last week that:

About half those offenders were getting treatment for the first time;

86 percent went into outpatient drug-free programs, 10 percent into
long-term residential programs and the rest into other treatment;

About half cited methamphetamine as their main problem, about 15 percent
cited cocaine or crack and about 11 percent cited heroin;

About half were white, about 31 percent were Latino and about 14 percent
were African-American, while 72 percent were men;

Proposition 36 clients were just about as likely to stay in treatment as
other people.

The study covers all of California for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2002.

The participation is notable considering how local agencies had to
cooperate on planning and administration, assessment coordination, offender
treatment and supervision, training and troubleshooting, said Douglas
Longshore, a behavioral scientist and the study's lead author.

"Despite the challenges and ongoing concerns over funding, most county
representatives offered favorable reports on local implementation," he said.

Proposition 36 lets adults convicted of nonviolent drug crimes and meeting
certain other requirements be sentenced to probation with drug treatment
instead of imprisonment. Also eligible are some probationers or parolees
who violate drug-related conditions of their release.

The report says state courts found 53,697 drug offenders eligible for
Proposition 36 placement in that first year, of whom 44,043 -- 82 percent
- -- chose to participate. Of those, 37,495 -- 85 percent -- had their needs
assessed and 81 percent of those -- 30,469 -- entered treatment. The study
noted that to have 69 percent of offenders who opt for it in court actually
enter treatment is a good "show" rate compared with other drug treatment
referral studies.

"The UCLA study proves that Proposition 36 works," said Daniel Abrahamson,
the law's co-author and the Drug Policy Alliance's legal affairs director.
"Tens of thousands of people who were previously denied treatment are
getting it; hundreds of millions of dollars are being saved. And as a
result, individuals, their families and their communities continue to get
healthier."

The UCLA study didn't gauge the law's fiscal impact, but the Drug Policy
Alliance tried to do so by assuming about three quarters of the 37,495
people assessed for treatment otherwise would've gone to county jails for
an average of 23 days, and the rest would have gone to state prison for an
average of 16 months. Based on a $28,000 annual cost of incarceration, they
figured Proposition 36 helped avoid an average cost of$10,640 per offender
- -- about $399 million total -- less $120 million in treatment costs, for a
net savings of about $279 million.

The state Legislative Analyst's Office had predicted savings from
Proposition 36 wouldn't top $250 million until the law's third or fourth
year, Abrahamson noted. "We've exceeded those predictions in the first year."