We must preserve funding for services that prevent crime

OPINION – Earlier this year, local and state officials met to discuss implementation challenges for Proposition 36 which voters passed in November. There have been many challenges, but the most prominent is that Prop 36 not only provided no funding for its promised drug treatment programs, it also effectively defunds the programs that are providing effective mental health and drug treatment right now.

In the last decade, California built one of the most effective infrastructures for substance use disorder treatment, mental health treatment, housing support, and treatment for victims. These programs received funding through a novel approach outlined in Prop 47: California right-sized the sentences for certain low-level, non-violent felonies and then invested the savings in new services for treatment, victims services, and crime prevention. Proposition 36 rolls back some of these changes, and turns many offenses into new felonies that require incarceration for longer periods. The result will mean less cost savings and up to $100 million less in annual funding for organizations offering these services. Californians deserve to see these smart safety solutions scaled up to meet the needs of the community so every Californian can feel safe and thrive, not scrapped to pay for packed prisons.

When Californians voted for Prop 36, they voted for solutions oriented toward treatment, not just punishment. People dealing with substance use disorder and mental health issues should have access to the care they need — especially solutions that lead to interventions before crises escalate, reducing the burden on the criminal legal system. Yet, people across the state are struggling with access to housing, victim services, mental health treatment, and substance use disorder treatment because we don’t have the infrastructure to meet the needs of our community.

The funding from Prop 47 started scaling up solutions to fill those gaps with programs that are successful, cost effective, and contribute to public safety. Proposition 47 programs have reduced homelessness among participants by 64%, reduced unemployment by 32%, and increased full-time employment by 180%. The programs offer much needed services and offer sustainable solutions that help keep California safe long-term.

Safety also means making sure victims have the resources they need to heal. Prop 47 dedicates 10% of its funding to treatment for victims. This funding allowed California to expand from just one trauma recovery center (TRC) in 2014, to the twenty four TRCs that now serve crime victims and their families throughout the state.

The programs also support public safety by offering support to people leaving prisons and jails in reentry programs. These programs have a much better track record than traditional reentry services. Prop 47 programs consistently reduce recidivism among their participants. One program, LA DOOR, decreased the one-year reconviction rate among its participants to just 5%. The Supporting Treatment and Reducing Recidivism (STARR) program in San Francisco had only 11 participants of 624 recidivate after engaging in their services, with a recidivism rate of less than 2%. Overall, of the over 10,000 Cohort 1 participants, the recidivism rate was just 12%, compared to the estimated 68% recidivism rate of non-Prop 47 participants.

These programs are extremely cost effective as public safety investments. The cost of incarcerating one person in California is more than $133,000 per year. In contrast, the cost of participation of one person in a program funded by Prop 47 is just $3,270. If we are going to spend more each year incarcerating people, we at the very least should not be defunding cost-effective, successful prevention programs.

Under Prop 47 policy, cost savings from forgoing incarceration are reinvested in crime prevention, reducing recidivism, and victim services, which means implementing Prop 36 will lead to less funding for all of these programs. These programs already have more demand than they can meet with current resources. These issues with access will only worsen if our state does not step up with the resources necessary to fund these programs at a scale that meets the needs of our communities. With Prop 36 diverting funds from these programs, it is the legislature’s responsibility to ensure these programs have a permanent funding stream.

Californians are concerned about crime. But Californians also know that incarceration cannot make our neighborhoods safe without significant investment in solutions that address the root of these issues. We deserve to feel safe in our communities. The best way to achieve that is to preserve funding for the services that are preventing crime, treating substance use disorders, providing housing, and helping victims of violence heal.

Hollins, a survivor of crime, is the executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, the state’s leading public safety advocacy organization.