Riverside County Alcohol Drug Rehab Centers

RIVERSIDE COUNTY AREA REHAB CENTERS

www.riversidecountyrehab.info

>>RIVERSIDE COUNTY REHAB INFO

Time Is Not On Their Side!
April 29, 2007

It appears that there may be a shortage of Riverside County Alcohol and Drug Rehab Centers. From detox bed space to residential rehab centers to even State mandated Proposition 36 Programs, there doesn't seem to be enough Riverside County Rehabs.

It's been reported that there have been some Proposition 36 eligible drug offenders having to endure lengthy waiting lists to enroll in programs after being ordered into them by the courts. Somehow it just doesn't seem right that the State of California has these folks ordered to programs that are too full to accept them.

When you think about it, the whole idea borders on cruelty. You give an addict who is, left to his own devices, completely powerless when it comes to drugs a 3 year probation term or suspended sentence for drug possession, order him to stay clean and sober and send him to a Proposition 36 Program for help. I'm with you so far, but the problem is that he can't enroll in a program due to overcrowding and then he's expected him to remain clean while he's waiting to enroll. Duh! That is why he has to enroll in the first place, 'cause he can't stay clean on his own. Remember? If he could "Just Say No!" he wouldn't need the program, now would he? I hope the probation department is cutting these people at least a little slack on dirty drug tests, because time is clearly not on their side.

Why Riverside County Rehab Centers?

Actually, upon further investigation, one quickly finds out that the root of this dilemma doesn't reside within Riverside County Rehabs. Proposition 36 was passed by 61% of California's voters on November 7, 2000. This vote permanently changed state law to allow first and second-time non-violent, simple possession offenders the chance to receive treatment instead of jail time. The law went into effect on July 1, 2001, with a $120 million budget for treatment services, allocated annually for the first five years.

The current problem seems to be, requests for expanded funding in 2006 were ignored and Governor Schwarzenegger funded the program at 2000 levels, which amounts to a significant cut. One recent report even suggests that the way the number of clients court ordered into programs is increasing every year and the way the number of voluntary clients has decreased annually, indirectly suggests that displacement of voluntary clients may have already occurred at least, in part, because of the demand for treatment by Proposition 36 clients.

Regardless of the reasons why Proposition 36 clients are held in limbo and voluntary alcohol and drug treatment clients are possibly being displaced, we will be posting links to any new Riverside County Proposition 36 Programs, bring you any news regarding Proposition 36 funding and also, some links to nearby Riverside County Alcohol and Drug Rehab Centers that the displaced voluntary clients may find accessible.

Senate Republicans 2007-2008 Proposition 36 Proposal
August 3, 2007

With 61% of California's voters approving Proposition 36 in 2000, the program has provided drug rehab instead of jail for 36,000 non-violent, low-level drug possession offenders annually. Prop. 36 has graduated over 70,000 addicts in 6 years, saved the tax payers of California $1.8 billion and helped ease the overcrowded conditions in our jails and prisons.

So, can someone explain to me what was on the minds of the Senate Republicans when on July 25, 2007, they proposed zero funding for Proposition 36 in 2007-2008? Never mind that the voters approved of drug rehab for addicts instead of incarceration even when almost every law enforcement agency, nearly all district attorneys and most elected officials in the state opposed it. Never mind that Prop. 36 is accomplishing almost exactly what it was designed to do, why would the Senate Republicans want to reverse the voters decision to promote drug rehab over incarceration when all incarceration does is add to the suffering of the addicted and their families. What the Senate Republicans are promoting is a new repetitive cycle of addiction and incarceration that turns tax payers into tax-spenders when they're incarcerated for having an illness that involves a series of brain chemistry disorders.

This proposal that attempts to end one of the most successful programs since the end of Prohibition in 1933, seems to be not only financially irresponsible, but also a violation of these Senate Republican's legislative duty to protect the will of the voters.

The following article is courtesy of

Prop 36 Saved Calif. Taxpayers $173 Million in First Year, Study Says
April 10, 2006

News Feature
By Bob Curley

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."

The following article is courtesy of

Calif. Drug-Reform Initiative Approved as Addiction Groups Choose Sides
June 27, 2008

News Feature
By Bob Curley

The state of California recently gave final clearance for the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA) to appear on the November ballot, but some prominent groups in the addiction community have come out in opposition to the measure, fearing its national implications.

In early June, California Secretary of State Debra Bowen certified NORA, saying that the initiative backers submitted 761,183 signatures, far more than the 433,971 needed to qualify for the ballot.

NORA will appear on the state ballot as the Nonviolent Offenders, Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation Statute and read as follows:

"Requires State to expand and increase funding and oversight for individualized treatment and rehabilitation programs for nonviolent drug offenders and parolees. Reduces criminal consequences of nonviolent drug offenses by mandating three-tiered probation with treatment and by providing for case dismissal and/or sealing of records after probation. Limits court's authority to incarcerate offenders who violate probation or parole. Shortens parole for most drug offenses, including sales, and for nonviolent property crimes. Creates numerous divisions, boards, commissions, and reporting requirements regarding drug treatment and rehabilitation. Changes certain marijuana misdemeanors to infractions."

The California legislative analyst and finance director estimated that the measure could cost the state an extra $1 billion in expenditures for expanded treatment and rehabilitation services for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community. However, the analysts also said that, "Savings to the state that could exceed $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs," and that net savings on capital costs for new prison facilities could exceed $2.5 billion.

In a June 18 letter to supporters, Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), called NORA "the most significant reform of prisons and sentencing in the history of the United States."

"It provides a solution to the state's prison overcrowding crisis through a combination of measures that will simultaneously and safely reduce the size of the prison population, provide effective treatment and rehabilitation, reduce recidivism and crime, and save taxpayers billions of dollars," said Nadelmann, who added that NORA is "also about reforming California's prison industrial complex in ways that will transform the state into a leader in sensible drug and sentencing policy, and serve as a model for other states."

Nadelmann said that NORA's provision for changing marijuana possession from a misdemeanor to an infraction similar to a traffic ticket "will protect some 40,000 people a year convicted of simple marijuana possession from the serious and life-long collateral consequences of a criminal record."

CADCA, Drug Court Group Signal Their Opposition

However, NORA has generated some significant opposition, both within California and nationally. Critics include the California Narcotics Officers Association, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, (NADCP) and Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA).

"Some aspects of the NORA initiative are consistent with NADCP's mission of extending treatment in lieu of incarceration for a large proportion of nonviolent drug-involved offenders and endorsing the use of evidence-based treatments, including psychiatric medications and anti-addiction medications," said NADCP in a position statement against NORA. "However, many of the core provisions of NORA are inconsistent with NADCP's core philosophy ... of combining treatment with accountability; ignore research evidence on effective dispositions for drug offenders; threaten the survival and proven success of California's drug courts, and drug courts across the nation; extend DPA's influence at the expense of public safety, proven judicial interventions, and DPA's political and philosophical adversaries; [and] endorse treatments and practices associated with the harm-reduction and legalization movements that are unproven and objectionable."

NADCP says that NORA funding is limited only to adult drug courts, leaving juvenile, family, and reentry drug courts out in the cold.

"NORA fails to learn many of the lessons of Proposition 36 regarding the importance of holding offenders meaningfully accountable for their actions, and matching offenders to appropriate dispositions based upon their criminogenic risks and needs," according to NADCP. "NORA goes well beyond Proposition 36 in restricting the circumstances under which probation and parole may be revoked and permits larger numbers of treatment failures before the drug court model can be applied. The result is likely to reduce the effectiveness of the judiciary for combating drug-related crime in California and contribute to a further increase in drug-related recidivism."

CADCA, meanwhile, also advised its members in California to advocate and vote against NORA, noting that DPA -- "a leading advocate for drug legalization" -- is backing the measure and that the initiative contains a number of "problematic" mandates, including decriminalization of marijuana possession, the establishment of a state commission that would set rules for treatment diversion programs and oversee funding, and limits sanctions for drug offenders.

"[NORA] effectively discontinues funding for three specific drug court programs and instead provides funding for a three-track drug treatment diversion program which allows offenders, even those with as many as five prior felonies to participate, as long as they appear to have a drug problem," according to a CADCA action alert from public-policy associate David Kurosky.

CADCA's alert also noted the estimated $1 billion cost of NORA to California taxpayers, but did not mention the estimated cost savings detailed by the Califonia Legislative Analyst's Office. "The enormous taxpayer expenditures mandated by NORA are likely to far exceed any realized benefits," NADCP agreed.

"NADCP is concerned not only about the impact of NORA in California, but also its potential influence at the national level," according to the group's position statement. "As was attempted by DPA in the aftermath of the enactment of Proposition 36, it is anticipated that the backers of NORA will use any success in California as a springboard and template for instituting similar legislative efforts in other states."

Support from California Treatment Community

NORA has received a much more positive reception from the treatment community, however: The California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives has endorsed the measure, as has the California Society of Addiction Medicine (CSAM). And polls suggest that voter support for NORA also is strong.

"We believe that this is the kind of reform that is necessary," said Kerry Parker, executive director of CSAM. "There were things about Proposition 36 that needed to be improved on and this initiative does so ... It basically doubles funding for drug treatment in California, including for adolescents."

Parker said that many of the opponents of NORA are the same individuals and groups that opposed Proposition 36. "NORA will provide more money and support for drug courts," she said. "It's unbelievable that [groups like NADCP] are not supporting it."

Nor does CSAM have any qualms about working alongside DPA in advocating for the measure, says Parker. "They have the money and we don't," she said. "It behooves the treatment community to rally behind them because we all have the same goal, which is to increase access to treatment."

Join Together Online is a project of School of Public Health

Addiction Rehab Marketing

Riverside County Rehab