Drugs, Treatment, Jail, and Indirect Consequences

The folks in favor of so-called criminal justice “reform” are fond of simplistic slogans such as “treatment, not jail” for drug offenders. However, as this story by Julie Watts at Sacramento’s CBS 13 indicates, “reform” measures can sometimes undermine treatment rather than promote it. This is one more example of a primary cause of bad policy — failure to consider the indirect consequences and considering only the direct consequences.

Once upon a time, drug courts were a key element of criminal justice reform. These specialized courts provide an alternative to people arrested for drug crimes, either possession or low-level dealing. If they agree to treatment and follow through to completion of the program, the criminal charges will be dropped. As described in the story, many people credit these programs with savings their lives.

But what happens when the criminal penalties for low-level drug offenses are lowered so far that the incentive vanishes?

That is what happened with California’s Proposition 47, its critics contend. The biggest problem with treatment for drug addiction is keeping addicts in the program. The pull of addiction is strong, and it takes a strong incentive in the other direction to counter it.

Participation in California’s drug courts has dropped substantially since the enactment of Proposition 47, according to the story. As with many statistics in recent years, sorting out the effect of Prop. 47 from the effect of the pandemic is a challenge, but as the pandemic fades into history the participation rates remain much lower than before Prop. 47.

But are there enough treatment spaces available? That is a problem, to be sure. Watts fact-checks Gov. Newsom’s claim that there are 22 counties with no residential treatment facilities.

We reached out to the Governor’s Office for clarification on what 22 counties he was talking about. They could not tell us, and instead, we received a link to California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) webinar slides from January 2022, based on information collected during the pandemic, which, according to the state, referenced 22 counties not participating in a specific drug delivery program.

The DHCS said it can confirm that “all but 15 counties (Alpine, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo, Lassen, Madera, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Plumas, Sierra, Siskiyou, Trinity)” currently have state-licensed residential treatment facilities, and in those counties, “clinics, health facilities, community and residential care facilities, jails and prisons can also offer these services.”

The 15 counties listed above are largely the most sparsely populated counties in the state. Alpine County had 1,204 people in the last census. No, I wouldn’t expect it to have a residential drug treatment facility. That fact should not stop us from revitalizing drug courts in Los Angeles County, which is approaching 10 million people.

The opponents’ claim that Proposition 36 is a return to “mass incarceration” is nonsense. Watts reports:

The nonpartisan California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that under Proposition 36, the “prison population could increase by around a few thousand people.”

For context, there are currently around 90,000 people in state prisons. At its peak in 2006, there were over 170,000 people incarcerated, according to CDCR data.