Editorial: Make a good tool against drugs, alcohol better

In 2000, California voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 36, the initiative that required treatment instead of prison or jail for those convicted of nonviolent drug possession. In the eight years since, California has saved millions of dollars in incarceration costs. Thousands of drug and alcohol abusers treated under Proposition 36 have turned their lives around and become contributing members of society.

Still, as the Little Hoover Commission has found in a report, "Addressing Addiction: Improving & Integrating California's Substance Abuse Treatment System," with better coordination, stronger leadership, sensible accountability and a little more funding, the state could do much better.

As the report states, "Alcohol and drug addiction wrecks families, overruns neighborhoods and drains public coffers." It costs the state's economy $44 billion annually from lost productivity to increased criminal justice and health care costs. An estimated 2.7 million Californians (9.3 percent of the population) abuse alcohol and drugs. The problem is huge; Proposition 36's response has been a modest step forward.

The proposition required the state to spend $125 million a year in additional treatment for the first five years after it was approved. A study conducted by UCLA estimates that the state saved $2.50 for every $1 invested in Proposition 36. In one year, taxpayers saved $312.8 million in jail and prison costs. Offenders contributed $3.6 million more in taxes than a control group studied. Those offenders who completed treatment saved the state $4 for every $1 spent.

Still, Proposition 36 has produced serious disappointments. There was too little accountability. More than a quarter of offenders never show up for treatment; only 32 percent who enter treatment complete it. Most troubling is that 42.7 percent of those who complete treatment were arrested again within 30 months.

Clearly, it can be made better. Relying on testimony from researchers, effective treatment providers, law enforcement officials and drug and alcohol abusers, the commission makes a number of sound recommendations. First, the report calls on the state to adopt a comprehensive treatment system that rewards counties that show improved outcomes, eliminates barriers that hinder cost- effective treatment and standardizes counselor certifications.

The state itself needs to provide more robust leadership by creating a permanent legislative joint committee on Alcohol and Drug Abuse and a substance abuse policy council that regularly examines barriers to effective treatment, collaboration and data collection.

Finally, the report recommends that the state encourage judges to impose creative sanctions for Proposition 36 offenders who refuse to show up for treatment – trash pickup on roadways, for example. It calls for more coordination between drug and alcohol abuse treatment providers and health and mental health workers and for fewer funding and administrative barriers between those disciplines.

Proposition 36 has not proved to be the solution to drug and alcohol abuse its supporters predicted eight years ago. Still, it has moved the state in a healthy direction. The Little Hoover Commission's report gives policy- makers sound advice on how to make it even better.