Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Drug Treatment Program Lowers Jail Population
The state’s 8-year-old program that mandates treatment instead of prison sentences for drug offenders is dramatically decreasing California’s jail population and saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a study released in 2006.
The study, prepared by the left-leaning Justice Policy Institute in Washington, echoes another report released by UCLA earlier this month that also touted huge taxpayer savings through doing away with prison sentences in favor of treatment. That report said the program, which was passed by voters in 2000 as Proposition 36, saved California $173 million in its first year and $2.50 for every dollar invested since then.
The report by the Justice Policy Institute, which seeks alternatives to incarceration, said the rate of imprisonment for drug possession offenses has decreased by more than 34%. It also said that dire predictions of a rise in violent crime with the passage of Proposition 36 were unfounded.
“It really helps to put a context to the debate,” said Jason Ziedenberg, the executive director of the Justice Policy Institute. “I think people need to understand how many people were in prison in 2000 as opposed to how many there are today and that there has been progress.”
The release of the two reports comes at a critical juncture for supporters who contend that the $120 million earmarked for Proposition 36 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger when funding runs out this summer is not adequate.
They contend that, because of inflation and an increase in costs for services, the money does not stretch far enough.
“It really needs to be at $209 million just to be bare-bones adequate,” said Margaret Dooley, statewide coordinator with the Drug Policy Alliance, which is seeking an increase in funding for the program. She said she and others would descend on the capital later this month to drum up support for the additional funding, which she believed would be forthcoming because lawmakers would be unable to point to a downside.
She also said she was confident of support from the more than 60,000 people arrested but kept out of prisons and jails because of Proposition 36.
Scott Ehlers, a coauthor of the Justice Policy Institute report, said he and others believe that the next goal should be to expand the reach of Proposition 36 to include those arrested for nonviolent crimes related to drug abuse – such as theft to purchase drugs.
He also said he did not anticipate any calls for major trims in the program.
“I don’t see anyone calling for a rollback by any means because I think the treatment is more cost-effective than sending people to prison,” he said.
Among other findings of the report are that spending on drug treatment in the state since 2000 has doubled, and that there has been a larger increase in drug treatment clients here than in the rest of the country. Also, the California prison population of drug offenders has been reduced from 27% to 21%, close to the national average.
Ziedenberg said the reason the Justice Policy Institute focused on California – as it does in many of its studies – is that “12% of the prison population is locked up there.”
He also said lawmakers will have to face the question whether they want to pay now for expanded drug treatment or later for additional prison facilities to handle the overrun.
“The main thing is for more money to be put in,” he said. “The thing we hear from people in California is that this is a good start.”
To get help with Addiction now phone Morningside Recovery (866) 725-8565
The study, prepared by the left-leaning Justice Policy Institute in Washington, echoes another report released by UCLA earlier this month that also touted huge taxpayer savings through doing away with prison sentences in favor of treatment. That report said the program, which was passed by voters in 2000 as Proposition 36, saved California $173 million in its first year and $2.50 for every dollar invested since then.
The report by the Justice Policy Institute, which seeks alternatives to incarceration, said the rate of imprisonment for drug possession offenses has decreased by more than 34%. It also said that dire predictions of a rise in violent crime with the passage of Proposition 36 were unfounded.
“It really helps to put a context to the debate,” said Jason Ziedenberg, the executive director of the Justice Policy Institute. “I think people need to understand how many people were in prison in 2000 as opposed to how many there are today and that there has been progress.”
The release of the two reports comes at a critical juncture for supporters who contend that the $120 million earmarked for Proposition 36 by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger when funding runs out this summer is not adequate.
They contend that, because of inflation and an increase in costs for services, the money does not stretch far enough.
“It really needs to be at $209 million just to be bare-bones adequate,” said Margaret Dooley, statewide coordinator with the Drug Policy Alliance, which is seeking an increase in funding for the program. She said she and others would descend on the capital later this month to drum up support for the additional funding, which she believed would be forthcoming because lawmakers would be unable to point to a downside.
She also said she was confident of support from the more than 60,000 people arrested but kept out of prisons and jails because of Proposition 36.
Scott Ehlers, a coauthor of the Justice Policy Institute report, said he and others believe that the next goal should be to expand the reach of Proposition 36 to include those arrested for nonviolent crimes related to drug abuse – such as theft to purchase drugs.
He also said he did not anticipate any calls for major trims in the program.
“I don’t see anyone calling for a rollback by any means because I think the treatment is more cost-effective than sending people to prison,” he said.
Among other findings of the report are that spending on drug treatment in the state since 2000 has doubled, and that there has been a larger increase in drug treatment clients here than in the rest of the country. Also, the California prison population of drug offenders has been reduced from 27% to 21%, close to the national average.
Ziedenberg said the reason the Justice Policy Institute focused on California – as it does in many of its studies – is that “12% of the prison population is locked up there.”
He also said lawmakers will have to face the question whether they want to pay now for expanded drug treatment or later for additional prison facilities to handle the overrun.
“The main thing is for more money to be put in,” he said. “The thing we hear from people in California is that this is a good start.”
To get help with Addiction now phone Morningside Recovery (866) 725-8565
Labels: academic-recovery, addiction, addiction-treatment, Alcohol, drug abuse, drug rehab, Drug-Addiction-Rehab, drug-testing, Dual-Diagnosis-Treatment
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Screening Could Make Inroads in Pediatricians Offices
Evidence continues to indicate that primary care offices could serve as effective sites for identifying alcohol use problems that might require specialty services. One of the latest studies offers the somewhat surprising finding that adults could be screened successfully in the offices of their children’s pediatricians.
Published in the November issue of Pediatrics, the study conducted at three pediatric clinics in New England found that most parents would be completely comfortable with being screened for alcohol problems by their child’s pediatrician, or through a computer or paper-and-pencil survey. Both parents who were not found to have alcohol problems through use of a questionnaire and those who were found to have alcohol problems said they would generally be comfortable with this screening, though the group found to have problems was slightly less supportive of the idea overall.
Lead study author Celeste Wilson, MD, a pediatrician with Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School, says some procedural details will likely need to be worked out before this kind of screening becomes routine in pediatricians’ offices. But she also points out that pediatricians already ask parents about a number of family health indicators that could affect their young patients’ well-being, from smoking in the home to domestic violence.
“I see this as a very powerful relationship, that of the parent and the pediatrician,” Wilson says.
What might tend to confound pediatricians is the question of what resources they can tap into at the community level if some of their patients’ parents screen positive for an alcohol problem. This is where the role of specialty addiction treatment providers in a community could surface.
“I do think it would potentially be quite helpful if addiction treatment professionals made outreach to pediatric providers,” Wilson says. “Pediatric providers in offices would actually welcome that. One of the concerns is that pediatricians don’t really know what’s out there.”
The study, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, cites an 11% likelihood that a screening conducted at a visit to the pediatrician will indicate a positive result. That is in line with positive screening rates derived in other primary care settings.
Published in the November issue of Pediatrics, the study conducted at three pediatric clinics in New England found that most parents would be completely comfortable with being screened for alcohol problems by their child’s pediatrician, or through a computer or paper-and-pencil survey. Both parents who were not found to have alcohol problems through use of a questionnaire and those who were found to have alcohol problems said they would generally be comfortable with this screening, though the group found to have problems was slightly less supportive of the idea overall.
Lead study author Celeste Wilson, MD, a pediatrician with Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School, says some procedural details will likely need to be worked out before this kind of screening becomes routine in pediatricians’ offices. But she also points out that pediatricians already ask parents about a number of family health indicators that could affect their young patients’ well-being, from smoking in the home to domestic violence.
“I see this as a very powerful relationship, that of the parent and the pediatrician,” Wilson says.
What might tend to confound pediatricians is the question of what resources they can tap into at the community level if some of their patients’ parents screen positive for an alcohol problem. This is where the role of specialty addiction treatment providers in a community could surface.
“I do think it would potentially be quite helpful if addiction treatment professionals made outreach to pediatric providers,” Wilson says. “Pediatric providers in offices would actually welcome that. One of the concerns is that pediatricians don’t really know what’s out there.”
The study, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, cites an 11% likelihood that a screening conducted at a visit to the pediatrician will indicate a positive result. That is in line with positive screening rates derived in other primary care settings.
Labels: drug abuse, drug rehab, Drug-Addiction-Rehab, drug-testing
Thursday, September 13, 2007
From Talking to Testing Your Children For Drug Use
Knoxville (WVLT) Most schools, and most parents, have a zero tolerance policy regarding illegal drugs.
Violating that policy can result in serious consequences.
So, you, as a parent want to take serious action if you suspect your child is using drugs.
We're covering East Tennessee health, with more on when you should go from talking to your child about drugs to testing for them.
Drug testing is becoming common in the workplace, with more employers requiring workers to undergo random screens.
But an increasing number of the clients here at Mobile Diagnostics are families; parents wanting their teenagers to be tested for illegal drugs.
Family psychiatrist Dr. John Robertson says before you drug test your teen, talk to him, but be skeptical.
"You want to believe your child, but you can't, not about that stuff, anyway. You're going to have to do a little bit more investigation, a little bit more work."
Talk to your child's friends and their parents.
Peterson says they may have seen or heard something, and parents are often the last to know if their own child has a problem.
But rather than rely on word of mouth, you may want proof, and if you decide to drug test your child, peterson says, do it randomly.
Dr. Peterson: "One of the things you can ask your child, 'if I do a urine drug screen, is it going to be positive or negative? Are you sure about that? I want to check it. Do one. Prove it to me.'"
The next step is diagnosing the problem: Has your child abused drugs on occasion, or is he already addicted?
There's a written test called an adolescent substance abuse subtle screening inventory designed to tell you.
"There is a test, a hand written questionnaire, that the adolescent fills out, that's 90 percent accurate in distinguishing between substance abuse and substance addiction," Dr. Peterson says.
Peterson says substance abuse is a problem that should be punished, but addiction is a disease that needs treatment.
And like other diseases, the earlier the treatment, the better the chance of survival.
At Mobile Diagnostics, you don't need an appointment for a drug screen.
They perform instant tests, urine tests and hair follicle tests at a cost of between 35 and 100 dollars.
And the can test for a specific drug or an entire screen.
There are at home tests, but most are not as accurate and there is more room for human error.
Covering East Tennessee health, I'm Jessa Goddard
Violating that policy can result in serious consequences.
So, you, as a parent want to take serious action if you suspect your child is using drugs.
We're covering East Tennessee health, with more on when you should go from talking to your child about drugs to testing for them.
Drug testing is becoming common in the workplace, with more employers requiring workers to undergo random screens.
But an increasing number of the clients here at Mobile Diagnostics are families; parents wanting their teenagers to be tested for illegal drugs.
Family psychiatrist Dr. John Robertson says before you drug test your teen, talk to him, but be skeptical.
"You want to believe your child, but you can't, not about that stuff, anyway. You're going to have to do a little bit more investigation, a little bit more work."
Talk to your child's friends and their parents.
Peterson says they may have seen or heard something, and parents are often the last to know if their own child has a problem.
But rather than rely on word of mouth, you may want proof, and if you decide to drug test your child, peterson says, do it randomly.
Dr. Peterson: "One of the things you can ask your child, 'if I do a urine drug screen, is it going to be positive or negative? Are you sure about that? I want to check it. Do one. Prove it to me.'"
The next step is diagnosing the problem: Has your child abused drugs on occasion, or is he already addicted?
There's a written test called an adolescent substance abuse subtle screening inventory designed to tell you.
"There is a test, a hand written questionnaire, that the adolescent fills out, that's 90 percent accurate in distinguishing between substance abuse and substance addiction," Dr. Peterson says.
Peterson says substance abuse is a problem that should be punished, but addiction is a disease that needs treatment.
And like other diseases, the earlier the treatment, the better the chance of survival.
At Mobile Diagnostics, you don't need an appointment for a drug screen.
They perform instant tests, urine tests and hair follicle tests at a cost of between 35 and 100 dollars.
And the can test for a specific drug or an entire screen.
There are at home tests, but most are not as accurate and there is more room for human error.
Covering East Tennessee health, I'm Jessa Goddard
Labels: drug-testing, teen-drug-abuse
