AT HOME INSTEAD OF IN JAIL FOR DRUGS

Just a few Christmases ago, Gary M. was homeless, living in a tent in a canyon.

Addicted to methamphetamine, he spent the holidays alone. This year, after
two years in California's Proposition 36, the
treatment-instead-of-incarceration initiative, Gary will be spending
Christmas with his family.

He has a full-time job, his own apartment and was able to buy toys for his
grandchildren. These days, he babysits them often.

As the holidays approach, thousands of families like his - children,
parents, husbands and wives - will spend the season with loved ones who are
recovering from drug addiction.

For many this will be the first Christmas they have shared in years.

They are together because of the revolutionary provisions of Proposition 36.

Still, while there are thousands of success stories, Proposition 36 is not
a silver bullet that can solve all of California's drug problems.

A series of negative articles has come out recently highlighting researcher
David Farabee's study, which concerns rearrest rates for a small sample of
drug offenders enrolled in Proposition 36 treatment programs during the
first six months of the initiative's implementation. Farabee's findings
were that this group of Proposition 36 participants was more likely to be
rearrested for nonviolent drug offenses than groups that accessed treatment
through other programs - he found no difference in their rearrest rates for
any other crimes.

Most of the articles neglected to offer any explanation for these findings:
According to the official, state-sponsored evaluation of Proposition 36,
conducted by Douglas Longshore of UCLA, Proposition 36 has extended access
to treatment to tens of thousands of people who were not being reached by
other treatment programs, 50 percent of whom have never had access to
treatment before, and many of whom were severely addicted.

Gary, for example, had been a drug user for 30 years before he got access
to drug treatment for the first time through Proposition 36, at age 47.

The other programs that Farabee examined, which had fewer drug-related
rearrests, included fewer clients and cherry-picked those candidates, most
of whom had been users for significantly less time than those affected by
Proposition 36. Farabee himself said that those rearrested were the
severely addicted who had received outpatient rather than intensive
residential treatment, which they needed - he called this "a recipe for
recidivism." Treatment providers around the state agree that there are
insufficient treatment options available to match appropriate treatment to
client needs, including a shortage of residential facilities and methadone
services for heroin users. Like cigarette smokers, people who have long
histories of addiction seldom kick the habit the first time they try.
Treatment providers agree that relapse is often part of the struggle toward
sobriety, and because of Proposition 36 close to 100,000 people have taken
the first step on that path. Proposition 36's successes must not be
undervalued: tens of thousands of people like Gary M. have completed
treatment, people who would otherwise likely be in jail, or, in his own
words, "I would have been dead."

Proposition 36 opened the door for treatment in a way that drug courts and
other diversion programs never could do - every person who qualifies has
the right to access treatment, absent any discrimination on the part of
drug court judges and prosecutors to keep them out. Proposition 36, for the
first time, leaves treatment decisions in the hands of treatment
professionals, trained to do the job. Proposition 36 also saves money.

While an official cost saving analysis by UCLA will not be released until
next year, our estimates indicate that the savings are in the hundreds of
millions of dollars per year: prison costs $31,000 per person per year,
compared to an approximately $3,200 per client for Proposition 36
participants. Proposition 36 also costs much less than drug courts. Farabee
recommends more appropriate treatment options for people in the Proposition
36 system.

We agree.

Yes, we need more money for treatment. And yes, we would like for people to
have more opportunities to succeed at treatment.

But Proposition 36 is the single most promising avenue to help direct
people, like Gary, out of the cycle of drug addiction and prison and into
productive, healthy lives.