DRUG USE REARRESTS UP AFTER PROP. 36

Convicted drug users in California are more likely to be arrested on new drug charges since Proposition 36 took effect than before voters approved the landmark law mandating drug treatment rather than incarceration, according a long-awaited study released Friday.

The state-funded study, conducted by UCLA researchers who have pored over four years of drug-related court cases, raises new questions about the effectiveness of Proposition 36 at a time when lawmakers and courts are discussing stricter requirements for defendants.

UCLA researchers tracking drug offenders found high levels of new drug arrests among those eligible in the first year of Proposition 36, which took effect in 2001. About 50% of those offenders were picked up by police within 30 months, compared with 38% of similar offenders convicted before Proposition 36.

The report notes that some increases in arrests were expected because Proposition 36 left offenders on the street who would have previously served time.

But the research also underscores the difficulty the state has experienced in getting drug offenders into treatment and out of trouble.

Only about 25% of the defendants who are sentenced to drug treatment complete the programs. And data released Friday show that even among those who complete drug treatment, more than four in 10 had new drug arrests within 30 months of their Proposition 36 convictions.

The numbers are worse for those who don't finish drug treatment. Researchers were surprised to find that those who failed to show up for rehab were less likely to be rearrested than those who went to some treatment but dropped out: 55% compared with 60%.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JB:
DRUG USE REARRESTS UP AFTER PROP. 36

...

The numbers are worse for those who don't finish drug treatment. Researchers were surprised to find that those who failed to show up for rehab were less likely to be rearrested than those who went to some treatment but dropped out: 55% compared with 60%.

---

Does anyone know if they included the people deported after they were done with their criminal cases?

John,
Did you forward a copy of that to Tony Fabelo? I'd be interested to hear his response. This is a very timely report given our own debate in this regard.

Well, that is not an argument against drug treatment and it's effectiveness, but an argument for in-patient drug treatment.

I hope our legislature sees how important SAFPF is to our CJ system, and why we need many more SAFPF units to keep the waiting time low.

I know we all, or at least I do, give choices to offenders with drug/alcohol issues during plea bargains, weighted heavily toward getting a defendant into SAFPF. Nonetheless, most of my defendant's opt for the prison time, even 18-20 months State Jail (day for day) over a short probation with SAFPF.

The "jailhouse lawyers" and "advisors" pretty much talk most eligible folks out of a SAFPF plea.

We have a particular problem getting ANY state jail defendant to accept SAFPF. Once the defendant learns that they can successfully complete the SAFPF program then later be revoked for a "technical" violation and NONE of the SAFPF time will count toward their sentence, it is a hard sell. Maybe the problem could be fixed by amending the statute to require time credit for SAFPF OR allowing the trial court discretion to award such time credit. When a defendant is looking at a maximum sentence in a state jail of 2 years, explaining that they could spend nearly a year wiating for space, in SAFPF and then in aftercare and have none of that time count, then be revoked / adjudicated and have to serve 2 years in a state jail. At least the option of time credit might make it easier to get defendant's the treatment they need.

Money is gone, but Proposition 36's drug-treatment mandate remains

By Josh Richman
Oakland Tribune
� Copyright 2011, Bay Area News Group
Posted: 02/22/2011 12:00:00 AM PST
Updated: 02/22/2011 08:06:40 AM PST


County officials who administer the state's treatment-not-jail program for certain drug offenders are struggling with a lack of funding that's not likely to improve, but advocates say ignoring the mandate simply isn't an option.

Instead, officials are trying to figure out how they'll continue to provide the same treatment without the money to pay for it.

Enacted by 61 percent of voters in November 2000 as Proposition 36, the law says first- and second-time nonviolent, simple drug possession offenders must be given the opportunity to receive substance-abuse treatment instead of jail time.

That "must" isn't a suggestion; it would take another voter-approved ballot measure to undo it.

But Prop. 36 allocated $120 million per year for only five years, and as the state's budget crisis worsened, the Legislature and governor declined to ante up. They set aside $108 million in 2008-09 but just $18 million in 2009-10, and then zeroed it out for this current fiscal year. Gov. Jerry Brown's budget proposal includes no money for it in 2011-12.

Full article

(Get ready to hear more about this issue this session, as groups propose to expand our current mandatory probation law to include 3rd-degree felony drug possession cases.)