A Fiscal Analysis of Issue 1 The Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative

Transcription

1 A Fiscal Analysis of Issue 1 The Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative Paid for by Ohio Campaign for New Drug Policies Ed Orlett, Treasurer 88 East Broad St., #1240 Columbus, OH (614) Fax: (614) web: ohio@drugreform.org

2 A Fiscal Analysis of Issue 1 the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative Executive Summary Issue 1, the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative, will save Ohio taxpayers over $355 million in reduced corrections costs in its first six years of operation. This equals net savings of $21 million per year after the initiative goes into effect on July 1, Every year, 6,300 to 6,400 non-violent, drug-involved offenders who would have otherwise been incarcerated will qualify for community-based drug treatment under Issue 1. This includes: nearly 2,600 drug possession offenders who would have otherwise gone to prison; over 1,200 drug possession offenders who would have otherwise gone to jail; over 1,100 drug possession offenders who would have otherwise been sentenced to a community-based correctional facility; 400 persons who possessed drugs and committed a non-violent crime, and would be allowed to enter treatment at the discretion of a judge; and over 1,000 non-violent supervised releasees who violated their conditions of supervised release with a drug-related technical violation. Approximately 1,600 to 1,700 existing prison beds may not be needed if the initiative passes. It may be possible for the state to shut down 1 to 2 prisons as a result. The citizens of Ohio should expect societal cost savings of between $210 million and $224 million for the additional $30 million a year they will directly invest in drug treatment services if Issue 1 passes, based on cost-benefit models used by the National Opinion Research Center and the RAND Corporation. 2

3 A Fiscal Analysis of Issue 1, the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative by Scott Ehlers, Director of Research, Campaign for New Drug Policies Issue 1, the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative, will save Ohio taxpayers over $355 million in its first six years of operation if enacted by voters this November. Net savings of $108 million over six years is expected when the initiative's new drug treatment appropriations are deducted. Moreover, passage of Issue 1 could result in Ohio closing one or more prisons within the program's first few years, resulting in the first significant decrease in Ohio's corrections budget in recent memory. Finally, passage of Issue 1 should result in total societal cost savings of between $210 million and $224 million a year according to drug treatment cost-benefit models used by the National Opinion Research Center and the RAND Corporation. These additional social savings account for reduced: crime; criminal justice costs; drug use and overdose; health care costs; unemployment and lost productivity. Following are the costs and savings that Ohio voters should expect from the passage of Issue 1 during the first six calendar years of the program, which is the mandatory funding period: Costs: $38 Million Annually; $247 Million Total Treatment and Administration Costs The measure requires that, from the fiscal years 2004 to 2009, $38 million a year be appropriated to the newly formed Substance Abuse Treatment Fund to pay for new treatment services; administration, probation, parole, and court costs; and a long-term study to assess the effects of the initiative. Just over $30 million of this annual appropriation must be used for new drug treatment services. An additional $19 million will be appropriated in 2003 to prepare the treatment and criminal justice systems for the new offenders entering drug treatment. Overall, Issue 1 will appropriate $247 million over 7 fiscal years to expand drug treatment services in Ohio. Actual Costs: $38 million annually; $247 million total Savings: Over $59 Million Annually; Over $355 Million Total State Prison System There are three categories of offenders who are currently entering the prison system who would qualify for treatment under Issue 1: 1) Simple drug possession offenders (4 th - or 5 th -degree felony); 2) Offenders with drug possession and a nonviolent offense; and 3) Offenders on supervised release or judicial release from prison who commit drugrelated violations of their terms of release. Of these, offenders charged only with drug possession for personal use are automatically eligible for treatment under Issue 1 s terms, subject to certain exclusions (violent history, dealing/trafficking, etc.). Those who commit drug possession plus another non-violent offense (petty theft, etc.) may only enter treatment with a judge s consent. Finally, those on some form of supervised release from prison will qualify only with a judge s consent, with their treatment paid for by Issue 1. 3

4 Following are the estimated savings due to reduced prison costs that would result from the diversion of these different types of offenders into community-based treatment: 1) Drug Possession Only. According to the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC), approximately 2,592 low-level drug possession offenders who enter prison would be eligible for diversion into drug treatment under Issue 1. 1 A recent DRC publication also notes that the average drug possession offender served approximately 230 days (approx. 7 1/2 months) in prison. 2 At an average daily incarceration cost of $63.23, 3 it costs approximately $37.6 million to incarcerate those drug possession offenders eligible for drug treatment under Issue 1. 4 Unfortunately, some persons entering drug treatment will fail to abide by the rules of the program and will be sent to prison as a result. We project a treatment failure rate of 35%, which is based on the results of similar treatment diversion programs in Arizona and California. 5 At this rate, 907 persons would be sent back to prison for up to 90 days, as prescribed by Issue 1. This results in offsetting incarceration costs of $5.1 million. 6 Net savings for diverting drug possession offenders from prison would be $32.5 million. 7 2) Drug Possession + Non-Violent Offense. Issue 1 follows the lead of existing Ohio law, the so-called intervention in lieu of conviction statute [ORC ], by offering judges the option to provide treatment to nonviolent, drug-abusing offenders who commit a non-violent felony. Offenders in this category must request treatment and receive special permission from the judge, unlike possession-only offenders who qualify automatically. Typically, the kinds of offenses that would go in tandem with drug possession would be prescription fraud, low-level theft offenses, check forgery, and similar offenses intended to acquire funds to pay for drugs. Data from DRC s admissions database indicate that over 600 offenders per year might qualify for treatment under this provision of Issue 1. 8 Of these 600, we estimate that 400, or about two-out-of-three, would receive an offer of treatment by a judge supervising the case. The two-thirds estimate is informed by repeated public statements by judges and others during the Issue 1 debate to the effect that treatment is commonly offered in similar cases now. With funding available for a comprehensive treatment program, this report assumes judges would be more comfortable offering it in many such cases in the future. Finally, because sentencing for the non-drug offense is unaffected by Issue 1, there is no disincentive such as a limited jail term for judges to try treatment in many of these cases. For purposes of this analysis, we only looked at the offenders in this category who would have gone to state prison. It is possible that some of these offenders are currently serving time in county jails or community-based corrections facilities (CBCFs), so the pool of offenders and savings is potentially greater. But due to data constraints, we chose to only include those offenders going to prison. DRC data indicate that the average prison sentence for persons in this category is approximately 442 days. 9 Today it costs approximately $11.1 million to incarcerate the estimated 400 persons per year in this category who would qualify for treatment under Issue Taking into account that 35%, or 140 persons, would fail to complete treatment and would be incarcerated for an average of 371 days 11, we estimate that passage of Issue 1 would result in $7.8 million in net savings every year in reduced incarceration costs for these offenders. 12 3) Supervised Release Violators. The final category of offenders that would be eligible for treatment under Issue 1 would be persons who commit a drug-related violation of the terms of their supervised release from prison. If the Parole Board or a judge approves, these offenders could enter a drug treatment program rather than being sent back to prison for a drug-related violation of the terms of their release. 4

5 Over 1,500 persons were sent back to prison in the year 2000 for using drugs while on some form of supervised release. 13 We estimate that two-thirds, or 1,014 of these offenders would be eligible for treatment in lieu of incarceration under Issue 1 (see two-thirds justification above). From available data, we estimate that post-release control violators who would otherwise be eligible for treatment under the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative served approximately 171 days in prison in Today, it costs over $10.9 million to incarcerate these offenders who would be eligible for treatment under Issue Assuming that 35%, or 355 of these offenders will fail to complete the treatment program and will be incarcerated for 171 days, we estimate Issue 1 will result in net savings of $7.1 million from reduced incarceration costs of these offenders. 16 In conclusion, we estimate that 2,604 net prison diversions will result from the passage of Issue 1, including: 1,685 drug possession-only offenders, 260 persons who committed a nonviolent offense with drug possession, and 659 diverted supervised release violators. This amounts to 1,600 to 1,700 prison beds, enough to fill one to two prisons. 17 We estimate that state prison operating costs would be reduced by $47.5 million annually if the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative passes. 18 Estimated Prison System Savings: $47.5 million County Jails Using statistics provided by the Ohio Department of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Services, the Ohio Sentencing Commission and the Bureau of Adult Detention, we estimate that 1,249 19,20 low-level drug possession offenders who would otherwise be sentenced to a jail term would be eligible for drug treatment under Issue 1. These offenders are sentenced to serve an average of 44 days in jail. 21 At the daily average cost of $66.45, today it costs approximately $3.6 million to incarcerate Issue 1-eligible drug possession offenders. 22 Once again, assuming that 35% of offenders violate the terms of the treatment program, we estimate that 812 low-level drug possession offenders would be removed from the jail system if Issue 1 passes, for a net annual savings of almost $2.4 million. 23 Estimated Jail System Net Savings: $2.4 million Community-Based Corrections Facilities (CBCFs) We estimate that over 1,100 drug possession offenders who would be eligible for community-based treatment under Issue 1 are serving a sentence in a CBCF. 24 On average, these offenders serve 125 days at an average daily cost of $ Incarcerating these low-level drug possession offenders in CBCFs costs approximately $12.5 million a year. 26 Assuming the same 35% treatment failure rate, we estimate that 717 drug possession offenders would successfully be diverted out of CBCFs into community-based drug treatment. This amounts to net savings of $9.3 million a year from reduced incarceration costs. 27 Estimated CBCF Net Savings: $9.3 million Potential Savings: Over $224 Million Annually Future Savings from Reduced Recidivism and Incarceration All of the above estimates pertaining to savings accrued from reduced incarceration only take into account the first avoided term of incarceration. The fact is, drug treatment can prevent numerous future trips to prison by addressing the driving force behind many people's criminal behavior: their addiction to illegal and expensive drugs. 5

6 While it is impossible to predict how many future trips to prison will be prevented by providing effective treatment early in an addict's criminal career, it is easy to see how quickly the savings add up. If, hypothetically, half of the 2,592 estimated eligible drug possession offenders would have otherwise gone on to commit another drug possession offense and sent to prison for the same amount of time, providing drug treatment and preventing that second drug possession offense would save over $18 million in prison costs. If drug treatment prevented an offender from going on to commit property crimes to support his/her habit, the savings climb even higher. Potential Future Incarceration Savings: tens of millions of dollars Trial Courts/Prosecution/Probation Savings The Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative will result in an additional appropriation to the court system and probation departments of about $5.3 million annually, adjusted in the future for inflation. In addition to this new appropriation, the measure is expected to result in annual savings for the court system because fewer offenders facing drug possession charges would contest those charges at trial, as evidenced in California after the passage of a similar treatment instead of incarceration measure, Proposition However, it must be noted that more offenders will be on probation and receiving drug treatment services in the short term, rather than being incarcerated. But because drug treatment has been shown to reduce drug use and drug-related crime, probation caseloads should be reduced in the long run. Because additional funds will be available for courts and probation departments, fewer offenders will contest their drug possession charges, and because probation caseloads should be reduced, we expect unknown savings to trial courts and probation departments in the long run. Potential Trial Courts Savings: in the millions of dollars Parole Operations The Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative could potentially save the state millions of dollars annually in parole operations costs due to the reduced number of persons entering the prison system and then being placed on post-release control (similar to parole). However, it is unclear what percentage of drug possession offenders and property offenders that are currently being released on post-release control would otherwise be eligible for diversion into drug treatment under the Ohio Drug Treatment Initiative. We expect unknown savings for parole operations. Potential Parole System Savings: in the millions of dollars Societal Savings According to RAND Corporation research, each additional dollar spent on drug treatment results in societal cost savings of $7.48. Other research has come to similar conclusions. 29 Such social savings include: reduced crime; reduced emergency room visits; reduced health care costs due to the less death, disease and negative health consequences resulting from illicit drug abuse; reduced unwanted pregnancies and addicted babies; reduced unemployment (and increased income taxes); and reduced welfare payments. Because the state of Ohio will be investing an additional $30 million a year directly into drug treatment services, Ohioans should expect to reap over $224 million in social savings. Potential Societal Savings: over $224 million annually Net Savings: $21 million annually; $108 million over 7 fiscal years Over $224 million in potential annual social savings 6

7 Variables, Assumptions, and Calculations in the Issue 1 Fiscal Analysis Drug Possession Only Prison Diversions Est. Number Possession Offenders Eligible for Diversion from Prison: 2,592 1 Average Prison Time Served for Possession Offenders:.63 year (230 days) 2 Average Cost of Prison: $23,079/year ($63.23/day) 3 Current Cost to Imprison Issue 1-Eligible Possession Offenders: $37,687,925 (2,592 eligible offenders x 230-day avg. prison sentence x $63.23 avg. daily prison cost = $37,687,925) Est. Cost to Imprison Possession Offenders Who Fail in Treatment: $5,161,465 (907 failures x 90-day prison sentence pursuant to Issue 1 x $63.23 avg. daily prison cost = $5,161,465) Net Savings from Diverting Drug Possession Prisoners into Treatment: $32,526,460 ($37,687,925 current cost of incarcerating eligible offenders - $5,161,465 future cost of incarcerating eligible offenders who fail in treatment = $32,526,460 net prison savings) Jail Diversions Est. Number Possession Offenders Sentenced to Jail Term: 1, Est. Number Possession Offenders Eligible for Diversion from Jail (85%): 1, Average Jail Length of Stay: 44 days 21 Average Cost of Jail: $66.45/day 22 Current Cost to Jail Issue 1-Eligible Possession Offenders: $3,685,025 (1,249 eligible offenders x 44-day avg. jail sentence x $66.45 avg. daily jail cost = $3,685,025) Est. Cost to Jail Possession Offenders Who Fail in Treatment: $1,289,759 (437 failures x 44-day avg. jail sentence x $66.45 avg. daily jail cost = $1,289,759) Net Savings from Diverting Possession Offenders from Jail into Treatment: $2,395,266 ($3,685,025 current cost of jailing eligible offenders - $1,289,759 future cost of jailing eligible offenders who fail in treatment = $2,395,266 net jail savings CBCF Diversions Est. Number Possession Offenders Sentenced to CBCF: 1, Est. Number Possession Offenders Eligible for Diversion from CBCF (85%): 1, Average CBCF Length of Stay: 125 days 25 Average Cost of CBCF: $91.10/day 25 Cost to Incarcerate Issue 1-Eligible Possession Offenders in CBCFs: $12,560,964 (1,103 eligible offenders x 125-day avg. jail sentence x $91.10 avg. daily CBCF cost = $12,560,964) Est. Cost to Incarcerate Eligible Offenders in CBCFs Who Fail in Treatment: $3,165,363 (386 failures x 90-day CBCF sentence pursuant to Issue 1 x $91.10 avg. daily CBCF cost = $3,165,363) Net Savings from Diverting Possession Offenders from CBCFs into Treatment: $9,395,601 ($12,560,964 current cost of incarcerating eligible offenders in CBCFs - $3,165,363 future cost of incarcerating eligible offenders in CBCFs who fail in treatment = $9,395,601 net CBCF savings Drug Possession + Non-Violent Offense Prison Diversions Est. Number Persons Sentenced to Prison for a Non-Violent Crime+Drug Possession: Est. Number of These Non-Violent Offenders Eligible for Diversion from Prison (66%): 400 Average Prison Time Served for Persons Convicted of a Non-Violent Crime+Drug Possession: 1.21 years (442 days) 9 Average Prison Time Served for Non-Violent Crime+Drug Possession Offenders who Fail Treatment: 371 days 11 Average Cost of Prison: $23,079/year ($63.23/day) 3 Current Cost to Imprison these Issue 1-Eligible Non-Violent Offenders: $11,170,211 (400 eligible offenders x 442-day avg. prison sentence x $63.23 avg. daily prison cost = $11,170,211) 7

8 Est. Cost to Imprison the Non-Violent Offenders Who Fail in Treatment: $3,284,166 (140 failures x 371-day avg. prison sentence x $63.23 avg. daily prison cost = $3,284,166) Net Savings from Diverting these Non-Violent Offenders into Treatment: $7,886,045 ($11,170,211 current cost of incarcerating eligible offenders - $3,284,166 future cost of incarcerating eligible offenders who fail in treatment = $7,886,045 net prison savings) Post-Release Control (PRC) Violators Prison Diversions Est. Number of Post-Release Control Drug-Related Violators Sent to Prison: 1, Est. Number Post-Release Control Violators Eligible for Diversion from Prison (66%): 1,014 Average Prison Time Served for PRC Violators:.47 year (171 days) 14 Average Cost of Prison: $23,079/year ($63.23/day) 3 Current Cost to Imprison these Issue 1-Eligible PRC Violators: $10,963,655 (1,014 eligible offenders x 171-day avg. prison sentence x $63.23 avg. daily prison cost = $10,963,655) Est. Cost to Imprison the Eligible PRC Violators Who Fail in Treatment: $3,838,377 (355 failures x 171-day avg. prison sentence x $63.23 avg. daily prison cost = $3,838,377) Net Savings from Diverting these PRC Violators into Treatment: $7,125,278 ($10,963,655 current cost of incarcerating eligible offenders - $3,838,377 future cost of incarcerating eligible offenders who fail in treatment = $7,125,278 net prison savings) Miscellaneous Variables Convictions, Treatment Success, Etc. Est. Annual Number of Misdemeanor 1, Felony 5, and Felony 4 Possession Convictions: 7, Average Completion Rate for Offenders in Treatment: 65% 5 Average Failure Rate for Offenders in Treatment: 35% 5 Est. Number of Prison Beds to Be Saved by Issue 1: 1,686 (calculation: 1,686 = [net possession offenders diverted (1,685) x avg. time served (230 days)] + [net possession+non-violent offenders diverted (260) x avg. time served (442 days)] + [net postrelease control violators diverted (659) x avg. time served (171 days)]. 8

9 Sources, Notes, and Calculations 1 Source: Steve Van Dine, Bureau of Research Chief, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Letter to Judge Robert D. Nichols, June 6, Source: "CY 1999 Time Served Report," Brian Martin, Bureau of Research, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (memo dated 8/29/00). Average time served for F4 and F5 drug possession offenders was calculated by taking the average time served for all "Felony 4 and 5 Drug Offenses" released on judicial release, expiration of stated term, and post-release control. 3 Source: Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, FY 2001 Annual Report, p Calculation: Estimated cost to incarcerate eligible drug possession offenders ($37.6 million) = number of possession offenders (2,592; see citation 1 for source) x avg. time served in prison (.63 years, or approx. 230 days; see citation 2 for source) x avg. daily cost of incarceration ($23,079 a year, or $63.23 a day; see citation 3). 5 Sources: Arizona Supreme Court, Adult Probation Services Division, Drug Treatment and Education Fund Annual Report Fiscal Year 1999, November 2001, p. 3; Del Sayles-Owen, Deputy Director of the Office of Criminal Justice Collaboration, California State Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Programs, State Progress Report to the SACPA Statewide Advisory Group, Sept meeting. The Arizona report found that 64% of prison ineligible offenders complied with the treatment program requirements. Ms. Sayles-Owens reported that in California, 70% of Prop. 36 offenders were complying with the terms of their treatment program. 6 Cost to incarcerate drug possession treatment failures ($5.1 million) = # treatment failures (907) x incarceration length under Issue 1 (90 days) x avg. daily cost of prison ($63.23). 7 Calculation: Net prison savings from drug possession offender diversions ($32.5 million) = cost to incarcerate these Issue 1-eligible possession offenders today ($37.6 million, see citation 4) incarceration costs incurred by DRC due to treatment failures ($5.1 million, see citation 6). 8 Source: Fritz Rauschenberg, Ohio Sentencing Commission, unpublished data. Over 600 people were sent to prison for an F5 non-violent property crime and an F4 or F5 felony drug possession conviction in FY Source: Fritz Rauschenberg, Ohio Sentencing Commission. According to calculations by Mr. Rauschenberg, the average prison sentence for a person convicted of both a non-violent F5 felony and an F4 or F5 felony drug possession offense is months (approx. 442 days). 10 Calculation: Cost to incarcerate non-violent+possession offenders ($11.1 million) = # eligible offenders (400) x avg. time served (442 days, see citation 9) x avg. daily cost of prison ($63.23, see citation 3). 11 Calculation: Avg. incarceration term for treatment failures of non-violent+possession offenders (371 days) was estimated by calculating the average time served for offenders convicted of non-violent crimes commonly related to addiction, including: bad checks and credit card fraud; breaking and entering; burglary; forgery; theft/theft in office; other property offenses; and other public order/other misc. offenses, and who were released on post-release control or an expiration of stated term in CY 1999 (avg..77 years, or 281 days) and adding an additional 90 days for the drug possession offense. 12 Calculation: Net savings from diverting non-violent+possession offenders ($7.8 million) = cost to incarcerate these offenders today ($11.1 million, see citation 10) costs incurred by DRC to imprison treatment failures under Issue 1 ($3.28 million = # failures (140) x avg. time served (371 days, see citation 11) x avg. daily cost of incarceration ($63.23, see citation 3)). 13 Source: Letter from Scott H. Neely, Legislative Liaison, Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to Rob Stewart, CNDP (7/19/01). In the year 2000, 1,521 persons on supervised release were sent to prison for drugrelated technical violations. 14 Source: "CY 1999 Time Served Report," Brian Martin, Senior Researcher, Bureau of Research, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (8/2/00). Avg. incarceration time for supervised release violators was estimated by calculating the average time served for offenders convicted of: bad checks and credit card fraud; breaking and entering; burglary; forgery; theft/theft in office; other property offenses; other public order/other misc.; and F4 and F5 drug offenses, and who were released on post-release control in CY Average time served (.938 years, or 342 days) was then divided by 2 because the maximum incarceration for a post-release control violation is 1/2 of the original sentence (equal.469 years, or 171 days). These property and drug offenses were selected because they are often tied to drug addiction. 15 Calculation: Cost to incarcerate eligible post-release control violators today ($10.9 million) = # eligible offenders (1,014) x avg. time served (171 days, see citation 9) x avg. daily cost of incarceration ($63.23, see citation 3). 16 Calculation: Net savings for PRCV diversions ($7.1 million) = Cost to incarcerate these offenders today ($10.9 million, see citation 15) cost to incarcerate treatment failures under Issue 1 ($3.8 million = # failures (355) x avg. time served (171 days) x avg. daily cost of prison ($63.23)). 17 Calculation: Number of prison beds saved (1,685.88) = net possession offenders diverted (1,685) x avg. time served (230 days or.63 yrs) + net possession & non-violent offenders diverted (260) x avg. time served (442 days, 9

10 or 1.21 yrs) + net post-release control violators diverted (659) x avg. time served (171 days, or.47 yrs). According to DRC s website, Ohio prisons range in size from a small prison like Hocking Correctional Facility (435 capacity) to a very large prison like Mansfield Correctional Institution (pop. 2,351). Most prisons are in the population range of 1,300 to 1,800 prisoners. Depending on the size of the prison(s), DRC could probably close one or two prisons due to population reductions resulting from Issue Calculation: Net prison operating savings ($47.5 million) was calculated by taking all of the costs of imprisoning Issue 1-eligible offenders today and subtracting the costs DRC will incur to incarcerate persons who fail in treatment under Issue 1. [Cost of incarcerating eligible offenders today ($59.8 million = drug possession incarceration costs ($37.6 million; see citation 4) + drug possession+non-violent offense costs (11.1 million, see citation 10) + PRCV incarceration costs ($10.9 million, see citation 15)] [costs to incarcerate treatment failures ($12.28 million = drug possession treatment failures ($5.1 million, see citation 6) + drug possession+non-violent offense failures ($3.28 million, see citation 12) + PRCV treatment failures ($3.8, see citation 16)]. 19 Source: Fritz Rauschenberg, Ohio Sentencing Commission; "Criminal Offender Treatment and ODADAS Options," ODADAS document received from OCNDP public records request; date unknown; ODADAS file location: sf/offender TX/Offender TX overview2-02.wpd. According to an unpublished report from the Sentencing Commission, approximately 19.1% of drug possession convictions between resulted in a jail sentence. According to the cited ODADAS document, an average of 7,690 persons were annually convicted of Misdemeanor 1, Felony 5, and Felony 4 drug possession in Common Pleas Court over a two-year period ending in Calculation: 7,690 x 19.1% = 1, Of the estimated 1,469 persons who were sentenced to a jail term for drug possession, we estimate that 85% 1,249 would be eligible for treatment. This is based on DRC data showing that 85% of drug possession offenders entering prison do not have any prior violent felonies. And considering that approximately 75% of drug possession offenders who entered prison would be eligible for treatment, we assumed that a higher percentage of persons serving a jail sentence would qualify due to the fact that they should be less serious offenders. 21 Source: Annual Jail Report, 2000, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Figure 6, p. 3 (May 2001). While no exact data exist for the average jail sentence for drug possession, for the purposes of this analysis we used the average length of stay (44 days) for all offenders housed in a minimum-security jail (MSJ). Nearly all offenders in an MSJ were serving a court-imposed sentence. 22 Source and Calculation: Annual Jail Report, 2000, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Figure 7, p. 4 (May 2001). The average daily cost to keep an offender in an MSJ in 2000 was $ If you multiply the estimated number of jailed drug possession offenders (1,249; see citations 19 and 20) by the average length of stay (44 days; see citation 21) by the average cost per day ($66.45), you get an estimated cost to jail drug possession offenders ($3.6 million). 23 Calculation: Net jail cost savings ($2.3 million) = Cost to jail drug possession offenders today ($3.6 million, see citation 22) cost to jail drug possession offenders who fail in treatment ($1.28 million = # failures (437) x avg. length of jail stay (44 days, see citation 21) x avg. daily jail cost ($66.45, see citation 22). 24 Source, Assumptions, and Calculation: Community Based Correctional Facilities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, p. 2. According to this report, 37% (1,708) of the 4,617 offenders sentenced to a CBCF were drug offenders. We assumed that all of these offenders were F4 and F5 felons because nearly all of the F1-F3 felons were probably violent or sex offenders (there were 785 violent or sex offenders in CBCFs and there were 878 F1- F3 felons). We further assumed that 76% (1,298) of these drug offenders were drug possession offenders, which is the same ratio of possession offenders entering prison. We then assumed that 85% of these offenders (1,103) would qualify for treatment under Issue 1 (see same justification for jail figure at citation 20). 25 Source: Community Based Correctional Facilities Annual Report Fiscal Year 2001, p Calculation: Cost of incarcerating Issue 1-eligible offenders in CBCFs today ($12.5 million) = # offenders (1,103, see citation 24) x avg. length of stay (125 days, see citation 25) x avg. daily cost ($91.10, see citation 25). 27 Calculation: Net CBCF savings ($9.39 million) = cost to incarcerate Issue 1-eligible offenders in CBCFs today ($12.5 million, see citation 26) cost to incarcerate treatment failures in CBCFs ($3.1 million = # failures (386) x 90-day incarceration under Issue 1 guidelines x avg. daily cost ($91.10, see citation 25). 28 Source: "Drug Treatment Debated as Alternative to Incarceration," Dayton Daily News, Kristy Eckert, Aug. 25, The article notes that Santa Clara County Judge Nazario "Tito" Gonzales says of Prop. 36, "'I ve seen some real progress here. There are lives being affected positively,' said Gonzales, who added that the court system now has more time to deal with major crimes." 29 Sources: Controlling Cocaine: Supply vs. Demand Programs, C. Peter Rydell and Susan S. Everingham, RAND Corporation, p. 42 (1994), See also: Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment (CALDATA), California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (Aug. 1994). This study found that a dollar invested in alcohol and drug treatment results in over $7 in tax savings. 10