Proposition 36: Issues and challenges

Journal of Psychoactive Drugs

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 321-328

  Jett, Kathryn P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION   (United States)

Author keywords

Department of alcohol and drug programs

Indexed keywords

ALCOHOL ABUSE; BEHAVIOR THERAPY; CONFERENCE PAPER; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; CRIME; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; GOVERNMENT; PATIENT COUNSELING; POLICY; PUBLIC HEALTH; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0035686878     PISSN: 02791072     EISSN: 21599777     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2001.10399916     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (CDADP). 2000a. Data from the California Alcohol and Drug Data System (CADDS). available online at www.adp.state.caus/AOD/cadds.htmliiCADDSmanual
2. California Department ofAlcohol and Drug Programs (CDADP). 2000b. California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Access Report (DATAR), November. available online at www.adp.state.ca.us/AOD/cadds.html#DATARmanual
3. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (CDADP). 1998. Indicators of Alcohol and Drug Abuse, 1994-1998. Sacramento: CDADP. available online at www.adp.state.ca.us
4. California Legislative Analyst’s Office (CLAO). 2000. Proposition 36: Drugs, probation and treatment program. Report presented to Joint Hearing of the Senate Committees on Public Safety and Health and Human Services and the Assembly Committee on Public Safety. Hon. John Vasconcellos, Hon. Deborah Ortiz, and Hon. Carl Washington, Chairs. September 21.
5. California Legislative Analyst’s Office (CLAO). 1999. Substance abuse treatment in California, services are cost-effective to society. Report presented on July 13.
6. Coyne, T.H. 2001. Understanding drug abuse and addiction: Psychopharmacology of addiction and its impact on treatment. Paper presented to Prop. 36 Statewide Conference, UC San Diego, California. May 14.
7. Department of Health Services. 1998. Health Data Summaries for California Counties. Sacramento: California Department of Health Services.
8. Gerstein, D.R.; Johnson, R.A.; Harwood, H.J.; Fountain, D.; Suter, N. & Malloy, K. 1994. Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center; and Fairfax, Virginia: Lewin-VHI.
9. Leshner, A. 2000. Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse, from a speech, Washington, DC, 2000.
10. McCaffrey, B. 2000. Substance Abuse Treatment in Adult and Juvenile Correctional Facilities. Washington, D.C.: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA).
11. National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). 1999. Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research Based Guide. NIH Publication No. 00-4180. Washington, D.C.: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
12. Riley, K.J.; Ebener, P.; Chiesa, J.; Turner, S. & Ringel, J. 2000. Drug Offenders and the Criminal Justice System: Will Proposition 36 Treat or Create Problems? Santa Monica, California: RAND.
13. Taxman, F. 1999. Unraveling what works for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. National Drug Court Institute Review 2 (2): 93-134.