In the midst of economic uncertainty and budget woes, I know the proposal I put forth will not necessarily be a popular one. However, I hope to explain why it is so necessary to take action now.
The subject? Funding for drug treatment programs. Follow me below the fold to find the details on what I propose, and why it's needed now.
On November 7, 2000, California voters passed Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000. The law became effective July 1, 2001.
In short, the law states that non-violent criminal drug offenders must be offered an opportunity to get into drug treatment, as opposed to simply being incarcerated. This was essentially done to lower the costs of housing drug offenders in jails and prisons, as 39% percent of California prison inmates were in prison for drug related offenses as of 2000. (We'll get to where this statistic is currently at.)
In Fiscal Year 2001-02 (in California this is July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002) funding statewide was $120 million. To date, this funding has remained essentially level; despite small increases in 2006-07, these were effectively removed, and funding has actually been reduced to $108 million for the current fiscal year.
Last Thursday, Governor Schwarzenegger released his proposed budget for 2009-10. (He actually released two; one is in case the budget measures pass (which they won't), and the other in case they don't.) The proposed budget eliminates all funding for SACPA. So, why do we really care?
A portion of the SACPA budget has always been set aside for comprehensive reports from UCLA. The most recent UCLA report (pdf, page 215) notes that for every $1 spent, the state saved $2 in court, prison, and jail costs. This is consistent with previous years' reports as well. For Fiscal Year 2008-09, this means California will save $216 million, and this after spending $108 million on treatment costs!
There are numerous problems with eliminating all of the funding. For one, the law as enacted doesn't change. When the measure passed, it created a new penal code (PC 1210, scroll way down). Choosing to end the funding at the state level doesn't change the requirement to offer treatment to non-violent drug offenders. This places the cost burden either on the counties, or directly onto the clients. There is no way the counties will be able to properly fund their treatment programs, which means the burden will placed directly on the shoulders of the clients.
UCLA, in the most recent report, noted that:
...approximately two-thirds of Prop 36 offenders were not working at treatment entry...
There is no way these clients can afford the total cost of treatment on their own. With no way to pay for their treatment, many will return to jail or prison, which will only increase incarceration costs.\
Stopping the funding for SACPA will bring about catastrophic costs and will skyrocket the prison populations.
I urge you, please, please write your senator. Or, write all of them!