TIME TO RETHINK ADAS FUNDING

Now that voters have turned them down for the third time in two years,
backers of the Lucas County Alcohol and Drug Addiction Services levy must
take a deliberate step back and carefully analyze why their rationale for
chemical dependency treatment has failed to resonate with the public.

Sad to say, but last week's defeat of the 0.5-mill ADAS levy, even in the
face of abysmally low voter turnout, indicates a sizable reservoir of
opposition toward public subsidies for drug and alcohol treatment.

To its credit, the ADAS board ran a much better campaign this time,
spreading the word around the county more widely and energetically, and
enlisting promotional help from Mayor Jack Ford, himself the former head of
a substance abuse agency. But the outcome was worse.

The levy failed by 1,286 votes and got a smaller percentage of support than
last November, when it lost by 1,115. A smaller (0.35-mill) version of the
levy was hammered by more than 9,000 votes when ADAS made its first
appearance on the ballot in March, 2000.

Passage of Issue 3 would have cost the average Toledo household about $15 a
year. That isn't a lot of money, so it is reasonable to conclude that
opposition must run more deeply than finances.

Letters to The Blade's Readers' Forum give the sense that a fair number of
Toledoans believe that those who abuse drugs and alcohol got themselves
into a mess willingly and must be responsible for getting themselves out.
Many feel that treatment programs aren't effective, and cite the high rate
of recidivism as proof.

That view is an oversimplification of a complex problem. Yes, recidivism is
high, but years of experience show that chemical dependency presents a
classic "pay me now or pay me later" conundrum. The community must pledge
some tax dollars for such services up front or we all will be forced to
ante up in the future for the indirect costs levied by violence, crime, and
ruined lives spawned by drug and alcohol abuse.

As a Children Services Board official noted, 70 percent of the children
under the care of that agency come from homes shadowed by drug and alcohol
abuse.

An umbrella organization mandated by state law, ADAS operates on funding
from the county mental health levy, the Children Services Board, and the
Department of Job and Family Services. But it remains less well known in
the community, after more than a decade in operation, than the 18 local
agencies for which it secures state and federal funds for drug treatment
and prevention programs. Perhaps it needs to do more to establish its identity.

One thing is certain: ADAS would be making a mistake if it put another levy
on the November ballot. Such a move would only cause opponents to redouble
their resolve to defeat it. What is needed now is a realistic appraisal of
drug and alcohol services in Lucas County and how to pay for them.