Five years ago, Californians voted Proposition 36 in by an overwhelming 61 percent margin, passing into state law one of the most enlightened reform efforts with respect to the problem of addiction in many decades. Alarmed at the relentless, and very expensive, growth in prison building in the state, voters correctly identified the problem as being one in which large numbers of drug users were being warehoused in jail as a result of misguided punitive approaches to addiction.

Mandating as it does that people who are caught for the first and second times for drug possession be sent to treatment rather than jail, many counties were dragged into the policy very reluctantly, especially counties in the middle and western part of the state. Municipal officials in these areas were more often than not skeptical that the program would work. But five years later a study by the University of California at Los Angeles, UCLA, has basically put to rest any doubt about the effectiveness of the program, at least from a financial perspective. The study estimates that over the five years since Prop 36 was passed, the state has saved nearly $900 million. And the rate at which the growth in the state’s prison population has slowed is truly remarkable. A federal Department of Justice study recently pointed out that when Prop 36 was passed in 2001, California was predicting that the number of prisoners statewide would reach 184,000 by 2005. The reality, post Prop 36 in 2006, is that California now has a prison population of just 164,000, thanks largely to a 20 percent fall in the number of drug offenders who are locked up. Factor in the fact that California no longer needs to spend $500 million on new prisons it had planned to build, and total savings from Prop 36 reach almost $1.4 billion.

But the success of Prop 36 is also measured in lives saved and people reborn, according Albert Senella, COO of Tarzana Treatment Centers, Southern California’s largest private treatment provider. In his capacity as president of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, CAADPE, Senella has been one of the state treatment industry’s key point men on Prop 36. “Absolutely the program has been a success,” says Senella. “But now we are looking to improve on it.”

One of the things that treatment providers are working on currently is ensuring that adequate funding exists for Prop 36 in the years to come. In his current budget, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes annual spending of $120 million, which county alcohol and drug directors are calling woefully inadequate, pointing out that it refunds the program at only 1999 levels. Senella says that this year counties will spend $147 million administering Prop 36. “We need a lot more than what the governor is proposing to get the job done,” says Senella, adding that the $120 million is seriously inadequate given that treatment providers estimate that they need at least $209 million a year to treat the referrals they are getting from Proposition 36. And Senella says that even with that funding, it would be hard to meet the needs of many Proposition 36 clients.

In Sacramento, early on, officials projected in their funding requirements that 70 percent of Proposition 36 referrals would be “casual” users requiring minimal treatment. Instead, over half of the referrals have turned out to be long-term drug abusers requiring far more intensive treatment. “These referrals, contrary to some people’s expectations, have to a large extent been very hard core drug users,” Senella said. “They need quite a bit more than outpatient treatment, but unfortunately funding for long-term inpatient isn’t often forthcoming.”

The backers of Prop 36 are hoping to use the new data from UCLA showing the massive cost savings the initiative has brought the state of California to persuade lawmakers in other states to adopt similar legislation. “All states find themselves cash strapped,” said Bill Zimmerman, who as executive director of Santa Monica-based advocacy group Campaign for New Drug Policies managed the ballot initiative that got Prop 36 passed five years ago. “We hope this new data will be a powerful tool in overcoming opposition to pursuing less punitive approaches to drug addiction.” Similar initiatives in other states brought by Campaign for New Drug Policies have not been successful. In 2002 the group managed to get a Prop 36 style ballot in front of Ohio voters, who defeated the initiative. In the same year, officials in Florida and Michigan killed ballot initiatives based on technical issues surrounding the signatures needed to get the issue on a statewide ballot.

“It takes millions of dollars to go the state ballot route,” said Zimmerman, pointing out that the financial backers of Prop 36 - three wealthy individuals that included billionaire social activist George Soros - had always intended and hoped that a success in California could one day be used as an instrument of persuasion with state officials and legislators nationwide. “We are now launching a campaign to influence the other states,” Zimmerman said. PD