Get it straight on rehab program
Re “Users kicking Prop. 36, not drugs,” April 1
It’s become fashionable to bash Proposition 36 because “only” 24.5% of those ordered into rehab completed the course of treatment during the most recent statistical period. In fact, 24.5% represents a howling success, as just about anyone familiar with the treatment of addiction diseases will tell you. Of that 24.5%, 78% remained drug free a year later. Most addiction-treatment programs count 10% as a high success rate. Yet there seems to be an across-the-board agreement to treat Proposition 36 as a failure, even though it has dramatically reduced the number of people serving time for drug possession offenses.
For Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ana Maria Luna to attribute an expectation of “probably a 75% or higher success rate” to the “lay voter” is just magic thinking (if that’s what the lay voter really expected). No addiction-treatment program anywhere has a 75% success rate.
BEN PESTA
Los Angeles
*
Proposition 36 has largely succeeded in achieving its two primary goals: providing a less-costly alternative to prison and serving offenders who do not ordinarily receive treatment.
UCLA researchers found that the program saved $2,861 per offender in its first year, leading to net savings for Californians of $173.3 million. The National Criminal Justice Treatment Practices Survey has shown that fewer than 10% of prisoners nationwide receive the care they need. With Proposition 36, 73% of those who were referred did get treated, and half of these stayed in treatment for at least three months. Because addiction is one of a knot of issues, it is best addressed by pulling together service and faith-based providers, families, communities and criminal justice experts.
Without the option of treatment, offenders have virtually no chance of getting clean and returning successfully to society.
LAURA WINTERFIELD
Senior research associate
CHRISTY VISHER
Principal research associate
The Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center
Washington
*
As currently structured, Proposition 36 doesn’t give judges or probation officers sufficient authority to screen candidates and enforce the treatment-instead-of-prison bargain on often recalcitrant offenders. A UCLA study found that eligible offenders who had multiple arrests in the 30 months before entering the program accounted for a relatively large percentage of the crimes subsequently committed. Tightening up on that group and on those who fail to appear for treatment would make the proposition more effective at controlling substance abuse and crime. At the same time, improving county treatment systems to reduce waiting time to admission and to better engage and retain these offender-clients is needed as well.
ANGELA HAWKEN
Research economist
The Integrated Substance Abuse Programs
UCLA
The writer is also an assistant professor of economics and policy analysis at the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University.