Drug Treatment: California's Prop. 36 Funding Takes Massive Hit
With California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) and the state legislature desperate to eliminate a $26 billion budget deficit, the state's voter-approved Proposition 36, which mandates that low-level drug offenders be ordered to treatment instead of jail, is not immune from the budget axe. Under the budget agreement just hammered out, Prop. 36 funding will take a massive 83% cut in funding, from $108 million last year to just $18 million next year.
That means thousands of California drug offenders will get neither jail nor treatment. State law forbids jailing them, and there will be nowhere near enough money to treat them.
"The courts are still obligated to push the people into treatment, knowing that the funds, the programs, the services aren't there," said Haven Fearn, director of the Contra Costa County Health Services Department's Alcohol and Other Drug Services Division. "That's the craziness that everyone is having to deal with. What's the answer to that?" she told the Oakland Tribune.
"It's sort of silly, it's awfully close to having just eliminated the program. You get down to such a core level that it's of very little use to most people," said Gary Spicer, management services director at the Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency. "What you wind up with is a treatment delivery system that's monopolized by judicial referrals and no longer available at the community level," he said. "It's a harm that keeps on hurting," he told the Tribune.
Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy state director for the Drug Policy Alliance, said the slashed funding will result in "very long waiting lists" and drug offenders walking free while waiting for treatment.
Under Proposition 36, which was approved by 61% of voters in 2000, first- and second-time drug offenders must be sent to treatment, not jail. A UCLA study found that every dollar spent on Prop. 36 drug treatment would save the state between $2.50 and $4. The study estimated the program needs about $230 million a year to meet the judicially-referred treatment demand.
Prop. 36 mandated $120 million a year in state funding through the 2005-06 fiscal year, but since then the program has had to compete for funding with other state priorities. The legislature increased funding to $145 million in 2006-07, then cut it to $120 million in 2007-08, and cut it again to $108 million last year.
Comments
Isn't it a Pity, isn't it a Shame...
What will the poor, Pooor, disatvantaged out of work social workers do when funding for tratment dries up in California. True social justice applies to them, too...
In reply to Isn't it a Pity, isn't it a Shame... by Anonymous (not verified)
what to do now
Humans locking up one another over a plant is above ridiculous. Incarceration as usual will help cut down on costs surely. Nut Job Prohibitionists have it all figured out.
Yet, the "government" needs to pay judges an extra $45,000/yr.
In Los Angeles, judges get an extra $45,000, over their $178,000/yr. salary, what's wrong with this picture? How many staff workers got the ax? Has anybody ever been to a government run agency, where you get 1 window open, and 300 people "on break" ?
Why are judges allowed to take extra money (emoluments)
http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/68.php ~~~this is what (JoeBannana) was refering to~~ why do judges except extra money (emoluments),they are breaking their Oath Of Office~~by taking this illegal money,they striked against the US Constitution form of government~why aren't they in jail?
I'm glad this program has
I'm glad this program has been slashed...programs like these offer "marijuana offenders" the "choice" between jail time or declaring themselves "marijuana addicts"...police are rounding up more pot smokers and forcing them into these addiction programs...Drug War profiteers (ONDCP) will assuredly tie this "sudden increase in marijuana addiction rates" to the "new extremely potent pot that is nothing like the pot that was around 30 years ago"....part of their new fear campaign with fabricated statistics to back it up.
If they decriminalized
If they decriminalized possession for personal use and gave treatment only to people who voluntarily seek it, they'd get better results. Instead of using their limited treatment resources solely on people who are forced to be there, they'd be using it solely on people who want to be there. The same amount of people get treated, but you have more people successfully getting clean.
This may not be a bad thing...
I voted for prop 36 because coercing people into drug treatment is better than coercing them into jails and prisons. But ideally, people would not be coerced into either. Still I can see how this situation has it's problems: Prop 36 let's you expunge your record if you successfully complete the drug treatment program, so this will mean that you'll have to wait a long time to get the mandated treatment and thus wait longer to get your record expunged.
Many judges have ordered people into in-patient drug treatment who could have done just as well with less expensive out patient treatment... maybe this will get those judges who have been overzealous about in patient treatment to recommend less expensive drug treatment. Prop 36 was written so that only the worst drug addicts would go to in patient programs, but some judges send virtually everyone to in patient programs.
Add new comment