IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2005.069336_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: Treatment capacity and displacement

Author

Listed:
  • Hser, Y.-I.
  • Teruya, C.
  • Brown, A.H.
  • Huang, D.
  • Evans, E.
  • Anglin, M.D.

Abstract

Objectives. California's Proposition 36 offers nonviolent drug offenders community-based treatment as an alternative to incarceration or probation without treatment. We examined how treatment capacity changed to accommodate Proposition 36 clients and whether displacement of other clients was an unintended consequence. Methods. Treatment admissions were compared for the year before and 2 years after the law was enacted. Surveys of county administrators and treatment providers were conducted in Kern, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco counties. Results. The number of Proposition 36 offenders admitted to treatment continued to increase in the state (approximately 32000 in Year 1 and 48000 in Year 2) and in the 5 counties; total treatment admissions stabilized in Year 2 after increasing in Year 1. Voluntary clients decreased by 8000 each year statewide, but the change varied across counties. One third of treatment providers reported decreased treatment availability for non-Proposition 36 clients in Year 2. Conclusion. Despite expanded treatment capacity (mostly in outpatient treatment), indirect evidence suggests that displacement of voluntary clients may have occurred in part because of the demand for treatment by Proposition 36 clients.

Suggested Citation

  • Hser, Y.-I. & Teruya, C. & Brown, A.H. & Huang, D. & Evans, E. & Anglin, M.D., 2007. "Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: Treatment capacity and displacement," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(1), pages 104-109.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2005.069336_9
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.069336
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2005.069336
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2005.069336?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nancy Nicosia & John M. MacDonald & Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, 2012. "Does Mandatory Diversion to Drug Treatment Eliminate Racial Disparities in the Incarceration of Drug Offenders? An Examination of California's Proposition 36," NBER Working Papers 18518, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Evans, Elizabeth & Anglin, M. Douglas & Urada, Darren & Yang, Joy, 2011. "Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 124-134, May.
    3. Evans, Elizabeth & Li, Libo & Hser, Yih-Ing, 2009. "Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 204-212, August.
    4. Swensen, Isaac D., 2015. "Substance-abuse treatment and mortality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 13-30.
    5. Cunningham, James K. & Liu, Lon-Mu, 2008. "Impact of methamphetamine precursor chemical legislation, a suppression policy, on the demand for drug treatment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 1463-1473, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2005.069336_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.