In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 36, otherwise know as the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, which allowed for treatment as an alternative to incarceration of nonviolent drug offenders. Eight years since its approval, the University of California in Los Angeles found that while the proposition is effective to some extent, the program’s full potential suffers from insufficient funding, high participant drop-out rate, and an increase in the number of drug and property crime arrests.

On the brighter side, UCLA’s Integrated Substance Abuse Programs at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, which conducted the study, said the initiative has saved millions of taxpayer money. Moreover, the report noted that crime rate in California, in contrast with the national crime rates, has decreased in the last eight years that Proposition 36 was in effect.

The savings in tax payer’s money, according to the report, is a result of the availability of cheaper alternatives to dealing with non-violent drug offenders. The report noted that while rearrests were more likely among the Proposition 36 group studied for the evaluation, substance abuse treatment proved to be a less expensive measure than prison time. As a result, almost $2 is saved for every $1 used for funding the program.

Likewise, even thought drug-related arrests rates were higher in the Proposition 36 group compared with statistics of pre-Proposition 36 offenders, crime rate in California significantly dropped in while the law was in effect. The report noted that the higher number of arrests may be accounted to the fact that the pre-Proposition offenders spent more time in custody than on the streets.

The UCLA report placed the annual number of drug offenders who receive treatment under the program to be around 30,000. Half of these, according to the report, receive treatment for the first time which is mostly in the form of outpatient treatment. However, even though outpatient treatment is less expensive than residential treatment, the program is still unable to meet the rising number of patients in line because of lack in funding, equipment, and infrastructure.

Following these findings, the UCLA research team recommended a series of measures to improve the program. These ainclude inclusion of more narcotics treatment, employment assistance, residential treatment programs , and several sanctions for failure to meet the program’s provisions. The report also recommended better measures for providing co-occurring treatment for mentally-ill and homeless population as well as the implementation of more restrictive management of first time offenders.

Funding for the improvement and sustainment of Proposition 36 remains a major concern, however, as California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has recently passed another cut to the programs budget.
Find out more about Proposition 36 and the benefits of addiction recovery treatment here at the Pacific Hill Treatment Centers Inc. Put an end to addiction, call our helpline today to discover how.

A few years back, the Office of National Drug Control Policy or ONDCP was the subject of controversy after its newly implemented screening procedures for the Drug-Free Communities Support Program resulted to cuts in the funding of several model communities anti-drug coalitions . At present, the office is faced with a new but related controversy with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticizing its grant screening and approval process.

According to a new report from the GAO, ONCPD’s creation of a new process of determining eligibility to receive grants under the Drug Free Communities Support Program “resulted in an inability to show that only the eligible coalitions received grants in accordance with the Drug Free Communities Support Program’s statutory framework.”

GAO identifies the roots of the said deficiency as the miscommunication of roles and responsibilities as defined in the inter-agency agreement of ONDCP and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA), which share oversight responsibilities with ONDCP for the Drug Free Communities Support Program. GAO also noted that ONDCP failed to follow federal procedures on the approval of grants.

The GAO report also made reference to the 2005 controversy faced by the office. The report stated that during that time, the ONDCP lacked a proper screening process for renewal grant applicants and the office used it own process. It was this process that resulted in the cuts to the funding of w63 Drug-Free Communities grantees and of 88 others being put on probation in spite of good scores under the old SAMSHA peer review procedure.

It was also this same action that led to the involvement of the GAO in the matter. Complaints arose after the cutting for funds from several previous grants and among these were those of Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and Charles Grassley of Iowa who jointly implored that GAO investigate ONDCO’s action.

The two senators noted in a letter to ONDCP director John Walters that the screening process employed by his office “relied more on qualitative and subjective data than it did on the peer-review scores that have guided the decision making process in past years.” The two also noted that the rule mandating coalitions to spend not more than 20 percent of their budget on direct services to be out of bounds as the Drug-Free Communities Act itself did not impose such restrictions. “ We feel that this is an arbitrary rule that ONDCP decided to impose this year with the ultimate objective of reducing the number of grantees eligible for continuation funds,” said the two.

Fast forward to the present report, the GAO further noted that ONDCP is still lacking in terms of proper tracking and documentations of grant eligibility. Moreover, the GAO report was clear to state that ONDCP still lack effective oversight “because ONDCP has neither developed nor documented its approach to monitoring and overseeing the program as a whole,” even as Walters claimed to the contrary.

Keep yourself updated on the latest in the drug research and legislation field here at Pacific Hills Treatment Centers. We will keep you posted on the latest developments on the field, which we ourselves take note of in order to improve our services.