AHS Views

I recently worked with a man whose daughter needed help with her heroin addiction. She had been in and out of detox several times and had no success with any of the local programs. Regardless, she had taken it upon herself to check in, once again, to a detox program that only lasted five days, and she was due to be released in two. But this time he insisted she follow up with an inpatient drug rehab. He called me to see what options were available in his area.

Having tried many of them, he knew that finding a local successful drug rehab would be difficult - unfortunately, most of the programs close to home were government–run, short term treatments that he already knew had some of the lowest success rates.

We agreed she needed to try something different, and we discussed changing her environment so she could focus on herself – without the distractions of being close to home. He was nervous about sending her very far, but he also knew it would handle those distractions. Being in a different city would also make it difficult for her to walk out while still in treatment and confronting the issues that got her into drug rehab in the first place. We finally settled on a drug rehab facility in California that offered a comprehensive approach in a safe environment that was very conducive to her recovery. Dad was very pleased to find exactly what he was looking for so quickly, and she checked herself in.

He called back the other day to offer his thanks, and to tell me his daughter had been doing wonderfully. As a result of the change in environment, and finally finding a successful drug rehab program, his daughter now has a real chance of recovery.

A recent LA Times Editorial criticized Governor Schwarzenegger for reducing and diverting drug rehab treatment funds from California’s Proposition 36 into a different fund that would provide the money to the counties who use it the most, but with restrictions.

Proposition 36 was overwhelmingly passed in a statewide vote in 2000 to approve funding for nonviolent drug offenders to be given drug rehab and addiction treatment instead of jail. Under the measure, offenders were given up to 3 chances to successfully complete a treatment program.

The Governor’s desire for change was sparked by the release of study information from UCLA saying that approximately half of the people sentenced to drug treatment programs from Prop 36 never completed and about one quarter never even showed up.

On the upside, the study showed that the initiative still saved the state $2.50 for every $1 spent diverting non-violent drug offenders into treatment instead of jail or prison.

The Governor wants there to be some additional ramifications for those who fail to comply with their sentence, including some jail time, and possibly look at individual cases instead of a blanket sentencing agreement and financial obligation.

Perhaps one major flaw in the system is being overlooked. Failure isn’t in the intent of the law or even necessarily in the way it has been carried out over the last six years, but rather in the drug rehab treatment practices themselves. Programs that produce successful results should be funded, rather than those that are just part of the traditional system or are state-money savvy. Programs must also be held accountable along with the individuals attending them, and follow-up monitoring is essential.

What are your views on other states adopting similar drug rehab programs to California’s Proposition 36? And what do you think would make it more successful? Despite the less than rave reviews, should more nonviolent drug offenders be given the chance to complete a successful drug treatment program before being sentenced to jail or prison?