EXTENDING PROP. 36 A COST SAVINGS.

Byline: Margaret Dooley Local View

WHEN California voters passed Proposition 36 in 2000 by 61 percent, we believed that spending taxpayer dollars on drug treatment, rather than on jail cells, for people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses made sense. Five years later, we know that we were right.

The groundbreaking treatment-instead-of-incarceration law has saved the state some $1.3 billion in just the first five years. Then there are the lives saved. More than 140,000 Californians have entered treatment through Proposition 36, and, by July 1 this year, 60,000 will have graduated and been able to reconnect with their families and communities.

Surely, with returns so good, this is one investment worth expanding.

According to a recent UCLA cost-benefit analysis of Proposition 36, the law saved taxpayers $173.3 million in the first year alone. Over five years, UCLA researchers have said, savings have hit $800 million. The Justice Policy Institute, which has published its own study on California's five-year-old diversion program, found that Proposition 36 allowed for an additional $500 million in savings because a prison scheduled to be built was not needed.

That puts total Proposition 36 savings in just the first five years at $1.3 billion.

As graduates recover from their addictions, get into the work force and stay out of the criminal-justice system, those savings will increase over time. Take Rudy, a San Diego-born American Indian, for example. He spent 20 years using heroin and cycling through the courts and prison. He was headed towards life in prison (at an annual cost of $34,500), like his brother and cousin. But Proposition 36 intervened.

Nearly two years at inpatient care helped Rudy to turn his life around. He has been sober, reconnected with his family and working for four years. Now he helps others along the road to recovery.

The UCLA and JPI reports come at a crucial time for Proposition 36, because funding for the program that helped Rudy and tens of thousands of others is set to expire on July 1.

The evidence that the reports provide about the fiscal and human successes of Proposition 36 makes it clear that the program is working. It's now up to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to decide how much to invest in the program. In his draft budget, he has suggested refunding the program at 1999 levels. But we are already spending significantly more than that. This year the counties will spend over $145 million, more than $20 million above what Schwarzenegger has proposed.

So how much does the program need? A statewide organization of treatment providers surveyed needs and concluded that Proposition 36 requires $209 million to offer adequate services. Some think the right amount is still higher. At a recent press conference in Sacramento, Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, called for the state and UCLA to create a research-based estimate of what the program needs.

Thanks to UCLA, we already know that more money invested in Proposition 36 will yield more savings. The UCLA research team put per-person Proposition 36 cost savings at $2.50 per $1 invested for program participants overall. For those who complete Proposition 36 treatment, the savings ratio is even higher, at $4 per $1 invested.

The best way to support Proposition 36 clients is to provide appropriate and adequate care. For a start, this means ensuring that people get the level of treatment that fits the severity of their addiction. Some 85 percent of Prop 36 clients enter outpatient care, even though many have been assessed as severely addicted. Due largely to higher costs, only 11 percent of Proposition 36 clients are able to access inpatient care. Putting more money in the system for residential services would give greater access to clients and improve their chances of completing the program.

From a purely budget perspective, the opportunity for greater taxpayer savings should be enough to support expanded funding for Prop 36. But from a moral standpoint, too, it behooves us to put more resources into this policy, which has had a measurable positive impact on tens of thousands of Californians' lives.