Latest

For Immediate Release: October 28, 2008 Contact: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli at (213) 291-4190 or Tommy McDonald at (510) 229-5215 Yes on 5 TV Spot Focuses on Treatment Success, Fiscal Savings Supporters Say Prop. 5 Means More of Both SACRAMENTO – With the budget deficit worsening and prison overcrowding reaching crisis levels, voters are looking for an affordable and effective alternative. Proposition 5 builds on California’s proven treatment-instead-of-incarceration programs for nonviolent drug offenders. According to the nonpartisan legislative analyst, Prop. 5 will expand access to proven treatment programs and cut state costs. The savings – in lives and taxpayer dollars – of California’s existing treatment programs is the theme of “Success Story”, a new TV spot released today by the Yes on 5 campaign and now airing statewide. The ad focuses on Proposition 36, the treatment-instead-of-incarceration program approved by voters in 2000, which has graduated 84,000 nonviolent drug offenders and cut state spending on incarceration by $2 billion. The ad comes just days after the release of a new study on Proposition 36. Al Senella, president of the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, said “The proof is in the research: treatment works and it cuts costs. But Prop. 36 hasn’t been adequately funded. That means some people aren’t getting all the help they need and taxpayers aren’t seeing all the savings they should. Inadequate investment in treatment means higher costs later.” Conducted by independent researchers at UCLA, the October 14 report found that Prop. 36 consistently serves 35,000 nonviolent drug offenders each year, saves $2 for every $1 spent, and that program completers have lower recidivism rates. Tom Renfree, executive director of the County Alcohol and Drug Program Administrators Association of California, said “UCLA showed that the program needs individualized treatment, increased supervision and improved accountability. Prop. 5 delivers on all these recommendations. For those not satisfied with Prop. 36, Prop. 5 is the answer. It will improve outcomes and further cut costs.” Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager of Yes on 5, said, “Prop. 36 has been a huge success. What all the research tells us is that treatment can be even more successful at cutting recidivism and prison spending. That’s why Prop. 5 is on the ballot.” The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office found that Prop. 5 will lower incarceration costs by $1 billion each year and reduce prison-construction costs by $2.5 billion. This doesn’t include savings related to reduced crime, fewer social services costs (e.g. emergency room visits, welfare), and increased individual productivity. For the ad: http://www.prop5yes.com/campaign-ads-videos For the report:http://www.uclaisap.org/prop36/documents/2008%20Final%20Report.pdf

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 27, 2008 CONTACT: Margaret Dooley-Sammuli at (213) 291-4190 or Tommy McDonald at (510) 229-5215 Prop 5 TV Ad Focuses on $2.5 Billion "Bottom Line" Only Measure to Cut State Costs, says LAO LOS ANGELES - Amid the state budget crisis and financial market meltdown, voters are anxious about ballot measures that will cost the state money. There's only one measure on the November ballot that will actually cut state costs, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO). That's Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act (NORA), which would increase treatment access for youth and nonviolent offenders, and reduce prison overcrowding. Cost-cutting is the theme of "Bottom Line", a new TV spot released today and airing statewide. The ad highlights the ballot language prepared by the LAO: that Prop. 5 will result in "capital outlay savings potentially exceeding $2.5 billion." The LAO's analysis has impressed other groups concerned with the state's fiscal health: Adrian Moore, of the Reason Foundation, said "Proposition 5 is taxpayers' only hope of getting prison spending under control, and the only choice on the ballot for voters concerned with our state's fiscal solvency." Richard Holober, of the Consumer Federation of California, said, "Prop. 5 is a good deal for California taxpayers. It's the only measure on the ballot that will reduce state spending. In these economic times, California can't afford not to pass Prop. 5." According to the LAO, Prop. 5 will reduce the state prison population by at least 18,000 and the number of people on parole by 22,000. Overall, the LAO calculates that Prop. 5 will generate "savings potentially exceeding $1 billion annually on corrections operations." Annual costs for Prop. 5 rehabilitation programs could eventually grow to $1 billion, says the LAO - making Prop. 5 cost-neutral on an annual basis. By reducing the number of nonviolent offenders behind bars and on parole, Prop. 5 will slow California's skyrocketing prison growth - which is currently increasing at three times the rate of the general adult population. According to the LAO, this would reduce future spending on prison construction by at least $2.5 billion. Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager with Yes on 5, said "Prop. 5 is a smarter way to spend existing resources so that we put the brakes on out-of-control prison growth while investing in proven, effective recidivism-reduction programs." UCLA researchers have found that treatment diversion saves $2.50 for every $1 invested, and yields $4 for every $1 among those who complete treatment. So, advocates believe, long-term savings from Prop. 5 could well exceed the $2.5 billion projected by the LAO, as more individuals achieve long-term abstinence from drugs and alcohol and become productive members of the community. The TV spot is online here: http://www.prop5yes.com/campaign-ads-videos The New York Times Editorial is online here: http://www.prop5yes.com/the-california-prison-disaster DPA Fact Sheet: CALIFORNIA'S BLOATED PRISON GROWTH * Since 2000, prison costs have grown 50% to over $10 billion - about 10% of the state budget. It now costs $46,000 to incarcerate one person for one year in CA. * Since the late 1980s, the prison population increased by 75% to over 170,000 - nearly three times faster than the general adult population. Meanwhile, the number of incarcerated nonviolent offenders skyrocketed from 20,000 to 70,000. * In the 1990s, California built 21 new prisons and just one university. The state now spends about the same amount annually on prisons and higher education. * From 1980 to 2000, the number of drug offenders behind bars jumped from 1,778 to 45,455. Since 2000, the number of people incarcerated for drug possession has fallen by over 6,000 - thanks to Proposition 36 treatment-not-incarceration. * About 20% of prisoners are incarcerated for a drug offense, but over 80% of inmates have a substance abuse problem. The prison system has capacity to provide treatment to only about 5%. * Every month 10,000 inmates are released; most have not received treatment or rehabilitation behind bars. California's recidivism rate is twice the national average at 70%. Each month 7,000 parolees are returned to prison. * Since 1980, membership in the prison guard union increased 500% from 5,000 to 31,000 - and average annual earnings grew from $14,400 in 1980 to nearly $90,000 in 2008 ($73,720 in base pay plus $16,000 in overtime). IF PROP. 5 DOESN'T PASS. * The response to California's prison crisis will be determined by a federal court. On November 17, 2008, a three-judge panel will consider putting the entire prison system under federal receivership. (The Legislative Analyst's Office calculates that Prop. 5 would reduce the prison population and parole populations by at least 40,000 in just a few years.) * California prison spending is projected to reach $15 billion by 2011. (The legislative analyst calculates that Prop. 5 would reduce prison spending by $1 billion per year and cut prison construction costs by at least $2.5 billion.) * Spending on drug and alcohol treatment in the community will continue to shrink; spending was cut by 10% in the 2009-10 state budget. (Prop. 5 would allocate increased and reliable spending on community-based alcohol and drug treatment programs proven to cut incarceration costs.)