Cuts to treatment would be misguided

Our newspapers are filled with stories of horrific cuts impacting schools, libraries, state parks and fire and police services. But the latest reductions to alcohol and drug treatment programs are wholly misguided.
The February cuts wreaked havoc on about 25 programs supported by the county. Providers are forced to increase caseloads, reduce treatment options and limit lengths of stay for those who require residential treatment.
First, the Legislature failed to balance the budget. Then, the public rejected a convoluted series of propositions. Now, predictions of existing tax yields have been scaled down. As a result, the governor wants an additional $1 million from the county’s treatment and prevention programs. That’s a whopping 14 percent cut on top of the February cuts!
Now, he recommends not just cutting, but actually eliminating certain programs, including Proposition 36, which mandates treatment instead of jail time for low-level, nonviolent offenders. And cutting these programs could result in the state losing hundreds of millions in federal matching funds.
According to Bill Manov, Santa Cruz County Alcohol and Drug Program administrator, substance abuse treatment is actually part of the budget solution — not part of the problem.
“Studies of Proposition 36 have shown that every dollar invested in treatment saves the taxpayer between two and four dollars,” Manov said. “Rehabilitation is far cheaper than incarceration and far more productive for the individual and the state.”
The Legislative Analyst’s Office, in its report on the governor’s May budget revision, strongly urges considering alternative funding sources to keep Proposition 36 and other treatment programs in place. One LAO proposal would redirect federal Byrne Grant funds typically reserved for drug-related law enforcement activities to treatment programs.
And there are other options. Shifting assets confiscated during drug busts from enforcement agencies to treatment programs would help. Increasing the historically low excise tax on alcohol and dedicating the proceeds to treatment programs seem to be obvious — if only partial — solutions to the problem.
A January 2009 poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 85 percent of Californians favored an increase in the tax on alcohol. The last such increase was approved in 1991. That action brought the levy on beer and wine to its present level — a whopping 20 cents per gallon.
Now it’s up to wine makers, restaurateurs, and alcohol retailers — and their aggressive lobbyists — to get on board with the current tax-increase proposals. Clearly, those who profit from the sale of alcohol must contribute to the cost of the abuse of alcohol.
The ability to provide treatment services during a recessionary economy is compounded by the emotional impact such an economy has on citizens. As times get tougher, as jobs become scarcer and mortgage payments more difficult to make, even the most stable and responsible of us may turn to alcohol or drugs to self-medicate and escape the realities of the day.
Even without the recent cuts, the county’s program providers simply cannot meet the demand for treatment. As that demand increases and funding decreases, far too many who need and want effective treatment will simply have to wait. The doors may stay open, but the lines to pass through them will keep getting longer.
The criminal justice system is very good at finding, convicting and incarcerating those whose drug abuse leads to criminal behavior. But the resulting human tragedy and increased budget impacts can and should be mitigated by adequately funding effective treatment and prevention programs.
Peter Nichols is chairman of the Santa Cruz County Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission. He can be contacted at pe***********@ch*****.net.