California's Proposition 36 Saves Taxpayers’ Money: By D. C. Hines, MDiv, MSW 2006/04/03 UCLA Study Finds Nearly $2.50 in Savings for Every Dollar Spent on Treatment of Drug Offenders. Proposition 36 -- the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA) -- was approved by 61% of California voters in the November 2000 referendum election. Known as the "Treatment Not Jail" initiative, Proposition 36 mandated that most persons convicted of 1st and 2nd time nonviolent, simple drug possession should receive probation with drug treatment instead of imprisonment or probation without any treatment. Offenders on probation or parole who commit nonviolent, drug-related offenses or who violate drug-related conditions of their release could also receive treatment under SACPA. One of the concerns expressed at the time of the referendum was the fear that the cost of treatment provided under SACPA would be a burden on the taxpayer. A new study conducted by a team of researchers at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior at UCLA demonstrates that instead of costing the taxpayer more, the SACPA is actually saving tax dollars. The research team headed by the late Douglas Longshore examined the cost differences between all SACPA-eligible offenders during the program's first year and those for a similar group of drug offenders before SACPA. Both groups were assessed over a 30-month follow-up period. The researchers examined costs in eight areas. Five involved the criminal justice system: jail, prison, probation, parole, and arrests and convictions. Two involved human services, namely drug abuse treatment and health care. The final area allowed accrued costs to be reduced by taxes paid by offenders on earnings and purchases. All analyses used the "taxpayer perspective" -- focusing on costs to state and local governments. Costs were adjusted to 2004 dollars using the consumer price index or, as appropriate, the medical price index. They found that California taxpayers save nearly $2.50 for every dollar invested in the treatment of nonviolent drug offenders under the state's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA) -- better known as Proposition 36. For offenders who completed their required drug treatment, nearly $4 was saved for each dollar expended. Taxpayer savings were $140.5 million in the first year and $158.8 million in the second. Savings related to SACPA were largely due to reductions in jail and prison time, while cost increases were due to drug abuse treatment and to subsequent arrests and convictions primarily related to later non-violent drug offenses. Probation and parole cost changes were modest as were increases in health care costs and taxable earnings. A disproportionately large share of the criminal justice costs were observed for the 1.6 percent of SACPA eligible offenders who had five or more prior convictions in the 30 months before the offense that brought them under SACPA. Costs for this subgroup at an average of $21,175 were nearly 10 times higher than the $2,254 for the typical offender. "The cost savings are dramatic, but with increased system accountability measures and improved offender management, as well as incentives to community programs for better treatment entry, retention, and completion rates, they could rise even higher," according to study co author M. Douglas Anglin, UCLA Professor of Psychiatry. "Our suggestions for boosting those savings include further improvements in the coordination of services and continuity of care within counties, better participant screening, improved matching of services to needs, and attention to special populations of drug offenders, including minorities and offenders with psychiatric problems." "The researchers concluded that the effectiveness of the SACPA program would be improved by a better match between the severity of the patient's drug problem and the intensity of the treatment provided," says the chair of NAPHP's Council on Illicit Drugs Policy, David Duncan. "But they fail to address the waste of taxpayer dollars on treatment for non-addicted drug users. Too many non-abusers wind up in treatment through this program, drug courts, or plea bargains whose social/recreational use of currently illicit drugs is doing neither them nor anyone else any harm." Professor Duncan also pointed out that SACPA seems to under utilize methadone maintenance for heroin addicts despite it unquestionably being the most effective type of treatment. You can read the full report of the UCLA study at http://www.prop36.org/. Another important report on this program is the Drug Policy Alliance's "Proposition 36: Improving Lives, Delivering Results". You also may want to view NAPHP's Policy Statement on Mitigating the Negative Effects of Illicit Drug Abuse: A Public Health Model which addresses the same issue Prof. Duncan raised of resources wasted on non-problematic drug use. Article from naphp.org