[ad_1]
Last year’s Proposition 36, which increased penalties on certain drug and property offenses, did so by convincing millions of voters that their initiative would help those struggling with addiction. Yet when the proposition took effect in December, there was still no plan for expanding California’s already-strained drug treatment infrastructure. Prop. 36 simply pointed to two existing funding streams as a source of treatment dollars: 1) Proposition 47 grants, which reinvest the prison savings generated by a 2014 law easing penalties on minor drug and property offenses; and 2) AB 109 funding, which accompanied a 2011 law aimed at addressing prison overcrowding by moving people—and dollars—into county systems.
We have evaluated both funds and find that AB 109, which is overdue for reform, would better address Prop. 36’s vague treatment requirements than the smaller, but highly successful Prop. 47 grant program.
Prop. 47 funding provides vulnerable Californians with treatment, housing, and employment services. Its grantees submit to rigorous evaluation and show strong results. Prop. 47 programs have reduced participant homelessness by 50%, unemployment by 60%, and cut their recidivism rates to roughly one-third of the state average. Community-based organizations provide most (80%) of these services.
Prop. 47 is about one-twentieth the size of AB 109, with annual funding amounts tied to the prison population. For this reason, Prop. 47 may lose a significant share of its funding in the coming years due to a potential Prop. 36-driven spike in incarceration. Now, the state is accelerating the release of a new round of grants that can be used to pay for Prop. 36 and may displace existing programs. Together, these changes threaten to erode the public safety gains achieved through Prop. 47’s years of investment in prevention.
By contrast, AB 109 is plagued by a lack of transparency and ignores California’s changing needs. Also known as Public Safety Realignment, AB 109 was designed to address the crisis of its moment. In response to inhumane and unconstitutional prison overcrowding, the 2011 law required counties to serve people with certain low-level felonies in their local systems and, in return, receive substantial funding from the state. Today, as in 2011, most of these dollars (67%) go directly to law enforcement agencies, including nearly 40% allocated to sheriffs.
But the public safety landscape has changed dramatically since 2011. Crime has dropped and so have jail populations and probation caseloads. Now, more Californians need support in their communities—including help with addiction. Reinvesting AB 109 funds into Prop. 36 provides two benefits. First, it maximizes the impact of AB 109 by diverting funds away from over-resourced law enforcement agencies into a behavioral health service. Secondly, it invests in drug programs on a meaningful scale, helping make good on Prop. 36’s promise to voters.
That promise—while it has created an opportunity for new investment in care—was always campaign bluster. Prop. 36 is not a drug treatment initiative. It will severely penalize those caught up in cycles of addiction, homelessness, and petty crime by allowing minor drug and theft offenses to be charged as felonies. Even those offered services through its so-called “treatment-mandated felonies” may end up behind bars if they are unsuccessful in their treatment programs. These new felonies carry multi-year jail or prison sentences, saddling people with felony criminal records that make it harder to find housing or a job. Moreover, research shows that taking a “get tough” approach to petty crime does little to deter it. In fact, it can have the opposite effect by trapping people in a daily struggle for survival and increasing the chances they commit another crime.
Prop. 36 is poised to do substantial harm to individuals, families, and communities. Raiding the Prop. 47 grant program to pay for Prop. 36 would deepen that harm. California must safeguard its successful community-based services, especially as we face an uncertain economic future. Rather than siphon off critical Prop. 47 dollars to fund court-ordered treatment, counties should look to AB 109 to meet this need. After all, why would we target a well-run $100 million grant program when a $2 billion one is already ripe for reform?
Maureen Washburn is senior policy manager at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Grecia Reséndez is a policy analyst at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.
[ad_2]
Source link