People on all sides of the debate over California's Proposition 36 seem to agree that the treatment-over-incarceration initiative has saved state taxpayers money, but a new study has done little to settle the question of whether the program needs tweaking or a major overhaul to reach its full potential.

A UCLA study released this week found that Proposition 36, which mandates that nonviolent drug offenders be placed in addiction treatment programs rather than prison, saved $2.50 for every $1 invested in the program.

For offenders who completed treatment, savings jumped to $4 for every $1 spent; about 34 percent of Prop 36 participants complete treatment.

However, offenders who had five or more drug convictions in the 30 months prior to Prop 36 going into effect -- representing about 1.6 percent of eligible offenders -- incurred costs that were 10 times higher than the average Prop 36 participant: $21,175 versus $2,254.

Researchers at UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine drew their conclusions from a comparison of Prop 36 participants and a group of similar drug offenders who had been sentenced to prison before the voter-approved initiative went into effect. Savings among the Prop 36 offenders came mostly from reduced prison costs, offset somewhat by increased treatment costs and arrests and convictions for subsequent drug offenses.

More Saving Possible

Study coauthor M. Douglas Anglin said that even more money could be saved if Prop 36 system accountability was improved, offenders were managed better, and treatment programs were given more incentives to enroll and retain clients and make sure they finish treatment.

"Our suggestions for boosting those savings include further improvements in the coordination of services and continuity of care within counties [which take the lead in providing Prop 36 services], better participant screening, improved matching of services to needs, and attention to special populations of drug offenders, including minorities and offenders with psychiatric problems," said Anglin.

Peter Banys, M.D., past president of the California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM) -- a strong supporter of Prop 36 -- called the UCLA report "one of the best such studies ever done in terms of methodology."

"This study is about real costs," he said. "It's pretty powerful because it's real money" saved, Banys added.

Different Interpretations

Treatment, law-enforcement, and drug-policy experts nationally have been following the progress of Prop 36 closely since its inception; the UCLA report led the New York Times editorial page to opine on April 10: "The data collected in California is beginning to show that nonviolent drug offenders are more effectively -- and less expensively -- dealt with when they are diverted into treatment."

The California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) and the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) both applauded the UCLA report, but differed sharply on its policy implications.

ADP director Kathryn Jett said the findings support Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to give judges more power to punish Prop 36 offenders who don't complete treatment. The plan also would exclude more offenders from participating in Prop 36, based on their past criminal records.

The proposal is part of a reform package included in Schwarzenegger's state budget, which calls for $120 million in one-year continuation funding for the voter-approved initiative, provided the legislature approves the governor's changes.

State officials suggest that Schwarzenegger's plan could exclude many of the highest-cost Prop 36 participants, who are most likely to commit future crimes. "[The UCLA] cost-benefit report underscores the need for reforms that the governor proposed in his January budget," said Jett. "A change in eligibility would allow counties to focus resources on individuals most likely to benefit from treatment."

Angela Hawken, of the Pepperdine School of Public Policy, who worked as the lead economist on the UCLA study, said Prop 36 "could have saved much more if it had some teeth."

"Offenders who comply with [Prop 36] terms do very well, but we need to chase offenders who accept the ... bargain and then fail to show up for treatment or drop out of treatment," she said.

But Nikos Leverenz, director of the DPA's Sacramento office, said the UCLA report represented a strong endorsement of using treatment as an alternative to incarceration, and called on Schwarzenegger and the state legislature to boost funding of the program to $210 million.

Dave Fratello, a DPA consultant and policy director for the Campaign for New Drug Policies, said the UCLA report did little to support Schwarzenegger's proposal to limit eligibility for Prop 36, noting that the "costly" 1.6 percent of offenders cited in the report only amounts to about 500 people. "Making a major change in a voter initiative and eligibility should be based on more than 500 people," he said, adding that the state's proposal "goes way beyond what UCLA says."

Fratello called the governor's plan to further restrict Prop 36 eligibility "a slippery slope towards making this a boutique program where the money is only targeted toward those who are 'ready for change,'" he said.

CSAM's Banys said that while Schwarzenegger's plan includes some positive reforms, "putting people in jail again means essentially the erasure of Proposition 36." He contended that there is no evidence that so-called "flash incarceration" -- short-term jail terms for noncompliant offenders -- is an effective way to improve treatment retention or outcomes.

"Proposition 36 gives people three bites at the apple," said Banys. "You can fail your way out of Prop 36. Are people being flunked? Yes, right and left. But law enforcement is saying don't give them any [chances to fail at treatment]; just pop them into jail for a week to get their attention."

"My view is that they've had 30 years to do that; they've had their chance," said Banys. "Most treatment providers are in favor of sanctions ... but there are ways to apply sanctions without putting people behind bars."