|
Q: Is Prop. 36 working?
A: Prop. 36 is delivering everything voters
asked for. Data show that treatment is
more widely available, far more people
are getting treatment and completing it,
and incarceration of drug offenders has
dropped dramatically. And California is
clearly saving money, though official
data will not be available until next
Spring.
Q: Who is getting treatment under Prop.
36?
In short, a long-neglected, older population
of long-term drug users with limited treatment
experience:
• Age. The average age of Prop. 36
clients is 34.6 years; 47.7% were age
36 or older.
• Drug Experience. More than half
(56.2%) have used their “primary”
drug for 11 or more years before entering
treatment.
• Primary drug of abuse. Methamphetamine
users make up half the Prop. 36 population
(52.7%) and they complete treatment at
a rate (35.0%) higher than for any other
illegal drug.
Q: How well do rates of treatment completion
in Prop. 36 compare?
A: There are many ways to compare, but
the simplest and most solid answer comes
from a head-to-head comparison using the
same data source found in the UCLA report:
Prop. 36 clients were 4.3% more likely
to complete treatment than “voluntary”
treatment clients, but slightly less likely
(1.4%) to complete treatment compared
to others who were sent to treatment by
the criminal justice system. The Prop.
36 completion rate was 34.3% in the program’s
second year, consistent with 34.4% in
the first year. “Voluntary”
treatment clients (those referred by family
members, doctors, employers, or themselves)
completed at a rate of 30.0%, and other
criminal justice clients completed at
a rate of 35.7%.
Q: Some people say the success rate
is higher, around 41.6%. Others say the
completion rate is lower, about 24% or
25%, not 34.3%. Why the difference?
A: The best measure of treatment completion
is one based on the number of people who
actually begin treatment and complete
it. That is what the 34.3% figure is based
on. However, UCLA researchers also note
that some people elect to try Prop. 36,
but never begin treatment. These people
subject themselves to arrest and incarceration
for failure to appear. A lower completion
rate (24.9%) is calculated based on the
total number who agreed to try Prop. 36.
It is important to note that treatment
completion data for all other comparison
groups, including California drug courts,
as well as the comparison data presented
by UCLA regarding “voluntary”
clients and other criminal justice clients,
are based on the numbers people who actually
began treatment.
A higher success rate (41.6%) is offered
in the UCLA report by combining those
who were discharged from treatment with
a rating of “satisfactory progress”
with the number discharged as having “completed”
treatment. Both are positive results from
treatment. Prop. 36 requires completion,
but courts may vary in how they determine
success. The UCLA report also notes that
just 23.1% of all people on probation
and in Prop. 36 treatment had their probation
revoked.
Q: Is Prop. 36 saving taxpayers money?
A: Yes. Comprehensive, official data will
not be available until next spring. But
by successfully treating over 35,000 people
and steeply reducing the number of people
going to jail and prison for drug use,
Prop. 36 is obviously saving vast amounts
of money. The rough cost of treating each
person in Prop. 36 is $3,333; the cost
of imprisoning a single person for a year
is now $30,929. It is difficult to state
a financial impact from reserving jail
and prison cells for more serious offenders,
but Prop. 36 may have reduced the need
for the state or for some communities
to construct additional jails and prisons.
Q: What can be done to improve treatment
under Prop. 36?
A: Heroin users have the lowest rate of
completion of all Prop. 36 clients (28.9%).
Only one in ten heroin users are receiving
methadone maintenance, even though it
is expressly permitted in Prop. 36. Most
heroin users are placed in outpatient,
drug-free treatment programs, setting
up the expectation that they will quickly
give up their addictions. Given the volumes
of evidence supporting methadone maintenance,
it appears that bad decisions in the courts
and at the county level are depriving
thousands of heroin users of a valuable,
effective treatment, with the result of
high treatment failure rates. Methadone
and other narcotic replacement therapies
should be given higher prominence in treatment
Prop. 36 clients for whom these treatments
are indicated.
Q: How does Prop. 36 compare with “drug
courts?”
A: Drug courts are a smaller, more intensive,
selective and expensive system. Before
Prop. 36, drug courts offered treatment
to about 3,000 drug offenders per year;
Prop. 36 now averages 36,000 new participants
per year. A major difference between the
systems is that drug courts select individual
offenders, while Prop. 36 is universally
available to drug offenders who qualify.
Some individual drug courts “graduate”
a greater percentage of offenders than
Prop. 36, while many graduate a similar
or lower percentage. In an average year,
Prop. 36 graduates 12,000 people and drug
courts graduate 1,100.
The newest drug court data come from a
time when drug courts were accepting Prop.
36 clients. These were people brought
into treatment through Prop. 36, but for
whom the program wasn’t sufficient.
Judges chose some of these people to continue
treatment in drug courts. If they succeeded,
paradoxically, these people counted as
“failures” in Prop. 36 data
and as “successes” in drug court
data – the same people. This makes
a comparison of the systems using recent
data even less accurate.
|
