PROP. 36 SAVED MONEY

Treatment Benefits Remain In Question

Two studies released this month, one by UCLA, the other by the
Justice Policy Institute, bolster the case for renewal and funding of
Proposition 36.

Voters approved the drug treatment initiative in 2000. It diverts
those convicted of simple drug possession or drug use offenses from
jail to treatment. The state allocates $120 million a year for the program.

Sell It Yourself The studies do not prove that drug treatment has
been an unqualified success. It hasn't been.

Many of those sentenced to treatment failed to complete their
treatment programs. Some never showed up at all. Many who went
through programs relapsed. But anyone who has suffered from alcohol
or drug addiction, or knows someone who has, understands that relapse
and failure are always possibilities.

The studies show that keeping low-level drug offenders out of jails
and prisons saves money. UCLA researchers say the initiative saved
taxpayers $173.3 million in its first full year of implementation, or
$2.50 for every $1 invested in treatment. Researchers attributed the
savings almost exclusively to reduced incarceration costs.

Using different methodology, the Justice Policy Institute, a
left-leaning, Washington, D.C.-based research organization that
pushes for alternatives to incarceration, reached similar
conclusions. JPI found that since Proposition 36 took effect, the
number of inmates in California prisons for drug possession has
dropped by 5,400, a 34 percent decrease in the rate of prison
incarceration for such offenders. And JPI noted that while opponents
warned that the initiative might lead to an increase in violent
crime, California's violent crime rate has declined since 2000 at a
rate higher than the national average.

As legislators decide whether to renew funding for Proposition 36,
these studies ought to be a big part of their calculation. There is
ample evidence that the state needs to provide more nonincarceration
sanctions for low-level offenders who fail to take advantage of the
treatment programs offered by Proposition 36. Treatment programs need
tougher standards and better scrutiny.

But diverting addicts from incarceration saves money and, unlike
prison time, improves the likelihood that they will eventually seek
treatment and turn their lives around.