Proposition 36-the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act-is one item awaiting its fate from state legislators who have yet to pass a budget. In the 2000 election, more than 61 percent of voters approved Proposition 36, a law designed to allow first- and second-time non-violent drug offenders the option of receiving substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration.
UCLA was chosen to run the required evaluation of Prop 36 and its final report was issued a few months ago, with the cost/benefit analysis being run by Pepperdine economist and policy analyst Angela Hawken. The results of her examination of Prop 36’s efficacy are encouraging.
California has the largest prison populations in the nation, now about 200,000 inmates, largely fueled by a twenty-five-fold increase in prison sentences for drug offenders in the past two decades.
However, the state’s prisons are literally bursting at the seams and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has championed budget increases for building and staffing more prisons. With prison guard salaries commonly topping $100,000 a year, the business of prisons represents a substantial portion of the state budget.
“SACPA [Prop 36] was allocated $120 million annually the last five years,” Hawken said. “From that, we have treated 150,000 inmates. And the numbers show unquestionably that, for every $1 spent, the program saves the state $2.50.”
Participation in the SACPA program is voluntary and statistics show that those who opted to enter treatment used alcohol and heroin less than abused methamphetamine and cocaine/crack.
“Sixty percent of the participants were serious meth users,” Hawken said. “And it is a very hard drug to ‘kick.’ But those who completed the program had high rates of success, got off the drug, changed their lives, got jobs and returned as tax-paying citizens to the community.”
To Hawken, the program unquestionably reduces drug use and subsequent crime rates for graduates, while saving the state tax dollars.
The problem is that, while the financial benefits to the state are irrefutable, the number of drug abusers who entered and actually completed the program were only about 30 percent of those eligible to participate.
Hawken acknowledged the number seems discouraging. “We obviously need to increase the rate of treatment completion. But those who did complete treatment saved the state $4 for every $1 allocated to their care.”
According to the study, the success rate was influenced by a number of variables, including type, location and duration of treatment and the participants’ drug history. Many first-time treatment clients had been using their primary drug for more than 10 years. Thus SACPA reached a large number of drug users who had never received treatment before.
Re-arrest rates for offenders were significantly lower over a 30-month period among those who completed treatment, particularly for meth users, than for those who did not, suggesting the program is highly efficient for those who make it through.
But those salutary benefits do not apply to enough of the program participants, in the governor’s view, and he has agreed only to refund the program at 2000 levels, which is effectively a funding cut.
“Governor Schwarzenegger believes that the overall rate of success for the program is insufficient right now,” Sabrina Lockhart, spokeswoman for the governor’s office, said. “He worked with the Legislature on a bi-partisan basis to effect changes in the enforcement of the program, allowing judges greater lee-way to make sure participants are responsible for the consequences of dropping out of the program.”
However, Hawken champions the fiscal benefits of the program as it is.
“Since this law was implemented, we have saved the state $1 billion in real money,” Hawken said. “And that doesn’t take into consideration the social benefits to 355,000 children who were returned to parents who complete this program.”
Hawken maintained that appropriate minimal funding of SACPA would need to be at least $228 million annually to see effective program completion rates increase. “But the absolute savings to the state would rise exponentially as well,” she said. “Right now, there are 13,000 Californians who would be in prison without this program. If we had the money to offer appropriate treatment duration and level of care, you would see those numbers go up.”
Joel Leifer is a forensic psychologist who assesses state prisoners and who studied the SACPA five-year results. “On face value, it seems to be very effective treatment protocol,” he said. “At the current funding levels, the overall efficacy of the program may seem to be in question, but, financially, it’s a great option for the state.”
Leifer said the real question lies in ongoing benefits. “Now, you must study long-term recidivism rates,” he said. “Where are the nets to catch these people and make them relevant to society? Good treatment is not enough for when they get out. There must be job training and search opportunities so they don’t return to their old lifestyles.”
Hawken said the future of SACPA is now in the hands of the state Legislature. “We’ve gotten a very positive response from the Senate,” she said. “The financial advantages are nondebatable, but nothing is simple in politics.”