California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for a severe funding cut to Proposition 36, the state's landmark, voter-approved, treatment-instead-of-jail program. The recommendation, part of the governor's budget proposal released last week, would cut $23 million from the money- and life-saving program.
 
Data consistently show that Prop. 36 is a success--over 12,000 people have successfully completed substance treatment during each year of the program's existence, putting the program on track to graduate 72,000 Californians in its first six years. In just its first five years, Prop. 36 saved taxpayers $1.3 billion, according to figures from the Justice Policy Institute.
 
Despite its proven track record, the governor is starving the program. A recent survey by the Coalition of Alcohol and Drug Associations found that Prop. 36 needs at least $209.3 million to "adequately address the treatment needs." Yet the governor has proposed allocating just $120 million to Prop. 36 in 2007-08.
 
If the governor's budget is approved, it would be the second funding cut in as many years. Counties spent $143 million on Prop. 36 last year. Delays in funding distribution at the state level this year mean that counties will have just $132 million available to them.
 
Margaret Dooley, DPA's Prop. 36 outreach coordinator, said, "We are, frankly, shocked by the deep cuts the governor wants to make to this popular and successful program. Prop 36 has saved taxpayers huge sums, and kept more people out of prison than anything the governor has ever proposed. But the governor appears to be wasting no time starving this program to death."
 
This year's proposal also contains new constraints on the funding, which are likely to further limit some counties' ability to fund the program. $60 million would be channeled through a one-year-old fund called the Substance Abuse Offender Treatment Program (OTP), which requires counties to match funds in order to receive state money. In counties that are unable or unwilling to put up matching funds, local Prop. 36 spending would drop to less than half of current levels. The county match stipulation is particularly unfair, counties have pointed out, since Prop. 36 is a state-mandated program and, according to a recent UCLA analysis, the state collects some 93% of associated cost savings.
 
DPA will work with the state legislature this year to bring the funding totals for Prop. 36 much closer in line with the actual need.
 
"A huge majority of Californians support Prop. 36 because it makes sense and because it works," Dooley said. "We will work hard in the next six months, together with program graduates and other treatment advocates, to keep legislators aware of the program's success and popularity, of their duty to uphold the will of the voters and of their responsibility to protect and expand this model public health program."