This is an archive of a past election.
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sf/ for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
Smart Voter
San Francisco County, CA November 4, 2008 Election
Proposition T
Free and Low-Cost Substance Abuse Treatment Programs
City of San Francisco
Ordinance - Majority Approval Required

Pass: 200,649 / 61.24% Yes votes ...... 127,014 / 38.76% No votes

See Also: Index of all Propositions
Results as of Jan 24 10:41am, 100.0% of Precincts Reporting (580/580)
Information shown below: Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Arguments |

Shall the City be required to provide enough free and low-cost substance abuse treatment services to meet demand and to maintain funding for such services?

Fiscal Impact from City Controller:
Should the proposed ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would increase the cost of government by between $7 million and $13 million annually in order to fund additional free and low cost medical substance abuse services.

The proposed ordinance would require the Department of Public Health to maintain an "adequate level of free and low cost medical substance abuse services" to meet the overall demand for these services. The City would be required to not reduce funding, staffing or the number of substance abuse treatment slots available for as long as slots are filled or sought. The proposed ordinance would establish a method for calculating overall demand for these services using the total number of filled substance abuse treatment slots plus the number of individuals seeking such slots. The proposed ordinance would require the Department of Public Health to provide an annual report to the Board of Supervisors of existing and unmet demand and a plan to meet the overall demand.

Approximately $50 million is budgeted for Fiscal Year 2008- 2009 to provide free and low cost medical substance abuse services, approximately 60% of which comes from the City's General Fund. These services are primarily delivered through contracts with local nonprofit organizations and the Department of Public Health spends approximately $3 million annually to administer the contracts. The Department of Public Health estimates that the cost of unmet demand for substance abuse services ranges from $7 million to $13 million above current spending levels.

The costs discussed above could increase or decrease depending on how the City implements the ordinance. Note that an ordinance cannot bind future Mayors and Boards of Supervisors to provide funding for this or any other purpose. Under the City Charter, the ultimate cost of this proposal depends on decisions made in the City's annual budget process.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No
A YES vote on this measure means:
If you vote "yes," you want to require DPH to provide enough free and low-cost medical substance abuse treatment services to meet demand and require the City to maintain funding for such services.

A NO vote on this measure means:
If you vote "no," you do not want to make this change to City law.

   Nonpartisan Information

League of Women Voters

Events

Radio Programs

This election is archived. Any links to sources outside of Smart Voter may no longer be active. No further links will be added to this page.
Links to sources outside of Smart Voter are provided for information only and do not imply endorsement.

Arguments For Proposition T
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION T!

Since 1997, the Treatment on Demand Planning Council has been advising the citizens of San Francisco on ways to build a more effective, more cost-efficient, and a more equitable treatment system.

The Planning Council continues to be the best representation of citizen advocacy and community-driven participation as part of our City's effort in addressing the needs of its citizens.

As long-time advocates of San Francisco's alcohol and drug related problems, we support the Treatment on Demand Act, as a life-saving and cost-saving measure. We all know that treatment saves lives and saves families.

University medical studies shows that every dollar spent on treatment saves $7-$13 in public costs.

San Francisco has a good community-based treatment system. We need to make sure that it is available to everyone who needs it as soon as they are ready.

We believe that the Treatment on Demand Act will make San Francisco a better place to live.

Please join us in voting YES on Proposition T!

On behalf of the Treatment on Demand Planning Council,

Georgia Bates Creel & Richard E. Gee
Co-Chairs

(No arguments against Proposition T were submitted)

San Francisco Home Page || Statewide Links || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: January 24, 2009 10:41 PST
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund   http://www.lwvc.org
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.