Pubdate: Thu, 26 Sep 2002
Source: Plain Dealer, The (OH)
Copyright: 2002 The Plain Dealer
Contact:  http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/342
Author: Ted Wendling

SUPPORTERS OF ISSUE 1 PREDICT TAX SAVINGS

Seeking to offset one big number with another, Issue 1 supporters released 
a study yesterday that says the drug offenders treatment initiative would 
spend $247 million to save $356 million.

Net savings to Ohio taxpayers: $21.3 million the first year, and $109 
million over the first six years, according to the Ohio Campaign for New 
Drug Policies.

The study is the first detailed attempt by proponents or opponents to 
quantify the financial impact of the proposed constitutional amendment. It 
also temporarily shifted the debate from the war on drugs and whether the 
amendment contains too much carrot and not enough stick to the initiative's 
effect on Ohioans' wallets and purses.

The amendment would require the state to offer treatment in lieu of prison 
to some nonviolent drug offenders, regardless of how many previous drug 
offenses they have had. Drug traffickers would not be eligible.

A spokeswoman for Ohioans Against Unsafe Drug Laws said the projected 
savings are pure fiction, although she was unable to provide any data on 
whether the measure would cost or save taxpayers money. The coalition is 
headed by first lady Hope Taft and Toledo Mayor Jack Ford.

"They [Issue 1 supporters] want to address this issue of cost-savings, yet 
they didn't write that into the amendment," said the spokeswoman, Jenny 
Camper. "Their numbers are not matching up, so they're doing whatever they 
can. They're going to the extreme of manipulating numbers and lying to the 
press about how many people this would affect."

On the contrary, said Issue 1 campaign Director Ed Orlett, the numbers are 
based on data from state prison officials and the nonpartisan Ohio Criminal 
Sentencing Commission.

Factoring in a 35 percent treatment failure rate, the study says 4,133 
people a year would be diverted into treatment from prisons, jails and 
community-based correctional facilities. That figure includes people who 
would be diverted to treatment for violating their parole by committing a 
nonviolent drug offense.

The annual savings from treating those people instead of locking them up 
would be $59.3 million, or $356 million over six years, the study says.

That's unrealistic, according to the sentencing commission, because it 
optimistically presumes that a prison will close.

"I think they're acting in good faith with their estimates, but while some 
of what they're saying might happen, all of it certainly won't," said the 
commission's executive director, David Diroll. "There's no way you can get 
to that amount [$109 million in net savings], and we don't really think you 
can get close to that amount."

For example, he said, if a prison doesn't close, the study's cost-savings 
figure - based on the average $63.23 a day that it costs to house a 
prisoner - goes out the window because all the state would save is marginal 
costs such as food and clothing.

Diroll said the $63.23 figure also is inflated because it includes 
maximum-security beds, which low-level drug offenders don't occupy.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens