This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hser, Y.-I. Articles by Farabee, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hser, Y.-I. Articles by Farabee, D. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

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

University of California, Los Angeles

Cheryl Teruya

University of California, Los Angeles

Elizabeth A. Evans

University of California, Los Angeles

Douglas Longshore

University of California, Los Angeles

Christine Grella

University of California, Los Angeles

David Farabee

University of California, Los Angeles

Five counties (Kern, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco) that demonstrate both variations and similarities in their implementation of Proposition 36 (e.g., treatment approaches, urine testing) and patient mix have been selected to participate in a study assessing how California's Proposition 36 is affecting the drug treatment system and patient outcomes. Except for San Francisco, treatment admissions increased during the first year of Proposition 36 implementation over the prior year (27% in Kern, 21% in Riverside, 17% in Sacramento, and 16% in San Diego), mostly in outpatient drug-free programs. Compared to non-Proposition 36 patients, 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. They were less likely to be treated in residential programs or methadone maintenance programs and fewer reported heroin use or injection drug use. Guided by the multilevel open systems framework, the study examines key issues of Proposition 36 that influence treatment systems and outcomes and empirically identifies "best practice" approaches in treating drug-abusing offenders.

Key Words: drug-abusing offenders • California Proposition 36 • drug treatment system • criminal justice system • patient outcome

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. Rodriguez and V. J. Webb Probation Violations, Revocations, and Imprisonment: The Decisions of Probation Officers, Prosecutors, and Judges Pre- and Post-Mandatory Drug Treatment Criminal Justice Policy Review, March 1, 2007; 18(1): 3 - 30. [Abstract] [PDF]

				Y.-I. Hser, C. Teruya, A. H. Brown, D. Huang, E. Evans, and M. D. Anglin Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the Drug Treatment System: Treatment Capacity and Displacement Am J Public Health, January 1, 2007; 97(1): 104 - 109. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]