skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 222289 Find in a Library
Title: Treating Drug-Abusing Offenders: Initial Findings From a Five-County Study on the Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the Treatment System and Patient Outcomes
Journal: Evaluation Review  Volume:27  Issue:5  Dated:October 2003  Pages:479-505
Author(s): Yih-ing Hser; Cheryl Teruya; Elizabeth A. Evans; Douglas Longshore; Christine Grella; David Farabee
Date Published: October 2003
Page Count: 27
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute on Drug Abuse
Bethesda, MD 20892-9561
Grant Number: R01DA15431;K02DA00139
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This study examined key issues of Proposition 36 that influence treatment systems and outcomes and empirically identifies “best practice” approaches in treating drug-abusing offenders.
Abstract: In 2000, California voters approved a Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000, also known as Proposition 36. This act allows adults convicted of nonviolent drug possession to choose drug treatment in the community in lieu of incarceration. The initial findings from the five counties participating in the study (Kern, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco) of Proposition 36’s impact on the drug treatment system have been encouraging both in progress made in Proposition 36’s implementation and in meeting some of the study's initial objectives. Due to selection criteria, the five counties demonstrated tremendous diversity with respect to treatment approaches, urine testing policy, and patient mix. However, there were also similarities across the counties; common issues identified by counties in the first year of Proposition 36’s implementation include identifying and treating duly diagnose patients, providing services for patients having greater than expected needs for intensive treatment, and meeting the housing needs of the homeless. Counties also shared concerns of continued State funding due to the State’s projection of a large deficit in the next fiscal year. Except for San Francisco, treatment admissions increased during the first year of Proposition 36’s implementation over the prior year, mostly in outpatient drug-free programs. Proposition 36 patients were more likely to be men, first-time admissions, treated in outpatient drug-free programs, employed full-time, and users of methamphetamine or marijuana. Tables, figure, notes, and references
Main Term(s): Drug offenders; Drug treatment programs; Treatment effectiveness
Index Term(s): California; Drug testing; Drug treatment; Homeless offenders
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.