Pubdate: Fri, 18 Feb 2011
Source: AlterNet (US Web)
Copyright: 2011 Independent Media Institute
Website: http://www.alternet.org/
Author: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli
Note: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli is deputy state director for the Drug 
Policy Alliance in Southern California.

CALIFORNIA IS BROKE -- YOU STILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO AVOID PRISON

Santa Cruz Just Became the Latest County to Announce It Would "End" 
Treatment-Instead-Of-Incarceration Program for Low-Level Drug 
Offenses Because of a Lack of Funding.

Santa Cruz just became the latest county to announce it would "end" 
CA's Proposition 36 treatment-instead-of-incarceration program for 
low-level drug offenses because of a lack of funding. This 
terminology is confusing and misleading   even for those who should 
know better.

Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, was 
approved by 61% of California voters in 2000 - and it can only be 
undone by the voters. That is, it doesn't "end" simply because the 
state and county aren't funding alcohol and drug treatment.

Counties that deny Prop 36 participants access to adequate drug 
treatment, such as by providing support groups (e.g., Alcoholics 
Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous) rather than licensed care, provide 
grounds for each defendant to bring suit. Just as importantly, 
California courts simply cannot remand people to jail or prison for a 
petty drug offense if that defendant is eligible for and opts into 
probation under Prop 36.

This is good news for California taxpayers.

According to UCLA research, Prop. 36 has helped reduce the number of 
people incarcerated for personal drug possession by 40% (or 8,000 
people), saves $2.5-4 for every dollar invested (over $2 billion so 
far), diverted 36,000 people into treatment a year when funded, and 
has had no negative impact on crime trends. If those 8,000 people 
were still in prison, taxpayers would spend an additional $400 
million on corrections this year alone.

California taxpayers are saving money by sending fewer people to 
state prison for drug possession, so it's hard to understand why 
Sacramento is moving us back to a time when prison was the primary 
response to petty drug possession and treatment was not available. 
It's even more disheartening to realize that we may already be there.

Prop 36 has slowed corrections growth by removing $400 million in 
annual costs, but not a penny of that has gone into treatment. State 
funding for Prop 36 treatment fell from a peak of $145 million in 
2007/8 to nothing in 2010. The governor has proposed no new funding 
for the program in 2011. It's a simple equation: the less funding 
available, the less treatment offered. This used to mean longer 
waiting lists to enter a treatment program (months long in some 
cases); now it means you may never get treatment. Despite the success 
of Prop 36, California still incarcerates 9,000 people for petty drug 
possession at an annual cost to taxpayers of $450 million. It's not 
entirely clear why they're there, but sadly it's probably because 
they have a drug problem. That's what happens when you reduce access 
to treatment. Ironically, few if any of them are receiving 
behind-bars treatment, which has also grown scarcer in recent years.

So, while such "progressive" states as Texas, New York, New Jersey, 
Michigan, Indiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma implement policies to 
divert people convicted of petty drug offenses from prison, 
California is doing the opposite.

The only part of the state budget likely to escape any cuts this year 
is corrections spending, which increased from $4 billion in 2000 to 
over $9 billion in 2010. In contrast, the governor has proposed an 
immediate $1 billion cut to the already devastated education system 
and a 21.5% reduction in health and human services. The governor says 
he'll reduce spending on corrections over time, just not now. But 
there's no reason to wait.

By making even small changes to the front end - that is, who we send 
to prison - California can reduce prison spending and protect public 
safety. By making drug possession a misdemeanor, for example, the 
state could safely cut prison spending by $450 million per year, and 
eliminate the barriers to success that currently follow a felony 
conviction. If it also changed penalties for people convicted of drug 
possession for sale (most of which involve selling to support one's 
own habits or to share with friends), the state would reduce prison 
costs by another $500 million annually. Some of that savings could go 
to reducing the budget deficit; some could go toward restoring the 
state's drug treatment system.