Incorporating a public health approach in drug law: Lessons from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California's proposition 36

Milbank Quarterly

Volumn 82, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 723-757

  Klein, Dorie ^a   Miller, Robin E ^b   Noble, Amanda ^b   Speiglman, Richard ^b  

^a PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

California Substance Abuse And Crime Prevention Act of 2000; Drug abuse policy; Drug abuse treatment; Proposition 36

Indexed keywords

ILLICIT DRUG;

ARTICLE; CRIME; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG PROGRAM; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; SAMPLE SIZE; SUBSTANCE ABUSE;

CALIFORNIA; COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; LEGISLATION, DRUG; PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 12444253837     PISSN: 0887378X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00329.x     Document Type: Article

References (84)

1. Abrahamson, D.N. 2001. Personal communication from Daniel N. Abrahamson, director of legal affairs, Lindesmith Center/Drug Policy Foundation.
2. American Bar Association. 2004. Justice Kennedy Commission Report to the House of Delegates. Available at www.abanews.org/nosearch/kencomm/rep121a.pdf (accessed June 28, 2004).
3. Andrews, T., and V. Schiraldi. 2004. Treatment, Not Jail, Saves Lives, Saves Money. Washington Post, April 25. Available at www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A39883-2004Apr24.htm (accessed May 3, 2004).
4. Anglin, M.D., and Y.I. Hser. 1990. Legal Coercion and Drug Abuse Treatment: Research Findings and Social Policy Implications. In Handbook of Drug Control in the United States, edited by J. Inciardi, 151-76. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.
5. Appel, J. 2004. Proposition 36 - Three Years and Going Strong. San Francisco Medicine, May: 26-7.
6. Arizona Supreme Court. 1999. Drug Treatment and Education Fund: Legislative Report, Fiscal Year 1997-1998. Phoenix: Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, Adult Services Division.
7. Arizona Supreme Court. 2001. Drug Treatment and Education Fund: Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Phoenix: Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, Adult Services Division.
8. Auerhahn, K. 2004. California's Incarcerated Drug Offender Population, Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Evaluating the War on Drugs and Proposition 36. Journal of Drug Issues, Winter: 95-120.
9. Bedrick, B. 1997. Improving Treatment Services for Drug Court Clients in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Oakland, Calif.: East Bay Public Safety Corridor Partnership.
10. Belenko, S. 1999. Research on Drug Courts: A Critical Review, 1999 Update. National Drug Court Institute Review 2(2): 1-58.
11. Belenko, S. 2002a. Drug Courts. In Treatment of Drug Offenders: Policies and Issues, edited by C. Leukefeld, F. Tims, and D. Farabee, 301-18. New York: Springer.
12. Belenko, S. 2002b. Trends in Substance Abuse and Treatment Needs among Inmates. Final Report to National Institute of Justice. New York: National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
13. Bridging Research and Services. 2001. Presentation by National Institute on Drug Abuse, Services Research Branch, to NIDA Conference on Bridging Research and Substance Abuse Services and Proposition 36, July 16, Riverside, California.
14. Butterfield, F. 2001. New Drug-Offender Program Draws Unexpected Clients. New York Times, September 29, A6.
15. Butterfield, F. 2004. Repaving the Long Road Out of Prison. New York Times, May 4, A25.
16. California Board of Prison Terms. 2001. Potential Referrals or Services Which Meet Proposition 36 Criteria for FY 2001/02 by Region. Sacramento.
17. California Campaign for New Drug Policies. 2002a. Ballot Pamphlet. Available at www.drugreform.org/prop36/materials.tpl (accessed August 28, 2002).
18. California Campaign for New Drug Policies. 2002b. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Available at www.drugreform.org/prop36/endorsers.tpl (accessed August 27, 2002).
19. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. 2000. Drug and Alcohol Treatment Access Report, October. Sacramento.
20. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. 2001. SACPA Entity Report, Fiscal Year 2001/2002. Available at www.adp.cahwnet.gov/sacpa (accessed June 15, 2004).
21. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. 2002. SACPA of 2000 Text of Permanent and Emergency Regulations Effective 2002. Available at www.adp.cahwnet.gov/sacpa (accessed June 15, 2004).
22. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. 2003. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA - Proposition 36). Second Annual Report to the Legislature. Sacramento.
23. California District Attorneys Association. 2004. Implementing Proposition 36. March. Available at www.cdaa.org/prop-36.pdf (accessed June 30, 2004).
24. California Legislative Analyst's Office. 2000a. Analyses of Propositions for Election: Tuesday, November 7, 2000. Proposition 36. Drug Treatment Diversion Program. Available at www.lao.ca.gov/initiatives/2000/36_11_2000.html (accessed September 7, 2003).
25. California Legislative Analyst's Office. 2000b. Implementing Proposition 36: Issues, Challenges, and Opportunities. Sacramento.
26. California Legislative Analyst's Office. 2001. Analysis of the 2001-2002 Budget Bill: Implementation of Proposition 36. Sacramento.
27. California Secretary of State. 2001. State Ballot Measures. Available at http://vote2000.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm#cty (accessed September 6, 2002).
28. Californians United Against Drug Abuse. 2002a. Proposition 36 Dangerous and Misleading. Available at www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/campaign/2000/ cal/general/caprop/prop36/website-no/index2.html (accessed August 27, 2002).
29. Californians United Against Drug Abuse. 2002b. We Oppose Proposition 36. Available at www.library.ucla.edu/libraries/mgi/campaign/2000/cal/general/ caprop/prop36/website-no/coalition.html (accessed August 27, 2002).
30. Church, T. 1982. Examining Local Legal Culture: Practitioner Attitudes in Four Criminal Courts. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
31. Colker, A.C., and A. Watson. 2001. California's Proposition 36 and Other State Diversion Programs: Moving Drug Offenders out of Prison and into Treatment. Washington, D.C.: National Conference of State Legislatures.
32. Davenport, P. 2001. Study Finds Arizona Drug Law Avoids Millions in Prison Costs. Associated Press, November 28.
33. Drug Abuse Research Center, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. 2001. Integration of Results - California State Treatment Needs Assessment Program, December.
34. Drug Policy Alliance. 2002. Wisconsin Community Coalition Pushes for Treatment, Not Prison. Drug Policy Alliance E-Newsletter, August 1.
35. Drug Policy Alliance. 2004. Reform in Kansas. Available at www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate (accessed June 30, 2004).
36. Drug Reform Coordination Network. 2002a. Marijuana Decrim Bill Dead in New Mexico, Other Drug Reform Measures Still Breathing. DRCNet. Available at www.drugreform.org (accessed February 12, 2002).
37. Drug Reform Coordination Network. 2002b. New York Rockefeller Law Reform Dies This Year as Pataki, Democrats Deadlock. DRCNet. Available at www.drugreform.org (accessed June 28, 2002).
38. Drug Reform Coordination Network. 2002c. Treatment Instead of Incarceration Initiatives for 2002 Ballots. DRCNet. Available at www.drugreform.org (accessed February 12, 2002).
39. Eisenstein, J., R.B. Flemming, and P. Nardulli. 1988. The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
40. Farabee, D., M. Prendergast, and M.D. Anglin. 1998. The Effectiveness of Coerced Treatment for Drug Abusing Defenders. Federal Probation 621:3-10.
41. Ford, W.E., and M.J.W Smith. 2001. Substance Abuse and C rime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of Plans from the 58 Counties. Report to U.S. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Washington, D.C.: Health Systems Research.
42. Fox, D.M., J.A. Egertson, and A.I. Leshner, eds. 1997. Treating Drug Abusers Effectively. London: Blackwell.
43. Glaser, B. 1992. Emergence vs. Forcing: The Basis of Grounded Theory Analysis. Mill Valley, Calif.: Sociology Press.
44. Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Chicago: Aldine.
45. Hoffman, M.B. 2000. The Drug Court Scandal. North Carolina Law Review 78:1480.
46. Howard, K.A. 2002. Telling the Story of Proposition 36: What Do We Need to Know and How Do We Get There? Summary of a Dialogue about Proposition 36 Research and Related Communication Needs, Millbrae, Calif., November 9, 2001. Report to the Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation. San Mateo, Calif.: Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation.
47. Hser, Y-I., C. Teruya, E.A. Evans, D. Longshore, C. Grella, and D. Farabee. 2003. 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. Evaluation Review 27(5):479-505.
48. Institute of Medicine. 1990. Broadening the Base of Treatment for Alcohol Problems. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
49. Join Together Online. 2001a. Demand Treatment Is about Service Quality as Well as Quantity. Available at www.jointogether.org (accessed October 30, 2001).
50. Join Together Online. 2001b. Limited Treatment Frustrates Drug Court Coordinators. Available at www.jointogether.org (accessed August 27, 2001).
51. Join Together Online. 2002a. Florida Drug Reform Ballot Initiative Withdrawn. Available at www.jointogether.org (accessed April 29, 2002).
52. Join Together Online. 2002b. Hawaii Bill Focuses on Treatment for Drug Offenders. Available at www.jointogether.org (accessed July 1, 2002).
53. Join Together Online. 2002c. Michigan Voters to Decide on Drug Sentencing Laws. Weekly Newsletter. Available at www.jointogether.org (accessed July 18, 2002).
54. Kennedy, G. 2001. Presentation by Santa Clara County District Attorney to the Judicial Council of California, California Administrative Office of the Courts, Proposition 36 Implementation Workgroup Meeting, San Diego, January.
55. Klein, D. 1983. Ill and against the Law: The Social and Medical Control of Heroin Users. Journal of Drug Issues 133:31-55.
56. Krikorian, G. 2001. Flood of Drug Diversion Cases Feared; L.A. County: Some Say Prop 36, Requiring Treatment Rather Than Jail, Will Swamp System. Los Angeles Times, June 18.
57. Lichtblau, E. 2001. DEA Chief Looks at Calif. Policy as Blueprint for U.S. Los Angeles Times, August 21.
58. Lincoln Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.
59. Little Hoover Commission. 2003. For Our Health and Safety: Joint Forces to Defeat Addiction. Sacramento, March.
60. Lofland, J., and L. Lofland. 1995. Analyzing Social Settings: A Guide to Qualitative Observation and Analysis. Belmont, Wash.: Wadsworth.
61. Longshore, D., E. Evans, D. Urada, C. Teruya, M. Hardy, Y.-I. Tser, M. Prendergast, and S. Ettner. 2003. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2002 Report. Implementation: July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. Prepared for the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles: Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California at Los Angeles.
62. Males, M., D. Macallair, and R. Jamison. 2002. Drug Use and Justice 2002: An Examination of California Drug Policy Enforcement. San Francisco: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Available at www.cjcj.org/pdf/cadrug2002.pdf (accessed June 15, 2004).
63. Marlowe, D.B., A. Elwork, D. Festinger, and A.T. McLellan. 2003. Drug Policy by Popular Referendum: This, Too, Shall Pass. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 25(3):213-21.
64. Marshall, C., and G. Rossman. 1995. Designing Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
65. McLellan, A.T. 2001. Remarks at Panel on Does Treatment Work? In Proceedings of the First Symposium on Proposition 36: Making It Work: A Statewide Technical Assistance Conference, May 14-16. Sacramento: California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs.
66. McVay, D., V. Schiraldi, and J. Ziedenberg. 2004. Treatment or Incarceration? National and State Findings on the Efficacy and Cost Savings of Drug Treatment versus Imprisonment. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute.
67. National Council on Crime and Delinquency. 2004. Attitudes of Californians toward Effective Correctional Policies. NCCD Focus, June. Available at www.nccd-crc.org/nccd/pubs/2004_corrections_attitudes.pdf (accessed June 15, 2004).
68. Nelson, H. 1996. Treating Drug Abusers Effectively: Researchers Talk with Policy Makers. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund.
69. New York Times. 2000. A Better Approach to Drug Offenders. Editorial, October 26.
70. New York Times. 2004. The Price of Prisons. Editorial, June 26.
71. Nieves, E. 2000. California Gets Set to Shift on Sentencing Drug Users. New York Times, November 10, A18.
72. Noble, A. 1991. Maternal Drug Use: The California Experience with Mandatory Treatment. Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology, San Francisco, November.
73. Riley, K.J., P.A. Ebener, J.R. Chiesa, S. Turner, and J. Ringel. 2000. Drug Offenders and the Criminal Justice System: Will Proposition 36 Treat or Create Problems? Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.
74. Shaw, S., and T. Borkman. 1990. Social Model Alcohol Recovery. Burbank, Calif.: Bridge Focus.
75. Speiglman, R. 1994. Mandated AA Attendance for Recidivist Drinking Drivers: Ideology, Organization, and California Criminal Justice Practices. Addiction 89(7):859-68.
76. Speiglman, R. 1997. Mandated AA Attendance for Recidivist Drinking Drivers: Policy Issues. Addiction 92(9):1133-6.
77. Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Process and Techniques. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.
78. Szalavitz, M. 2001. Letter to the editor. New York Times, February 18, 12.
79. U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. State and County Quick Facts. Available at http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06001.html (accessed September 7, 2003).
80. U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2000. Uniform Facility Data Set 1998; Data on Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities. Rockville, Md.
81. Wallace, B. 2000. Election Results Show U.S. Tiring of War on Drugs: Laws against Punitive Approach Win Voter Approval in Five States. San Francisco Chronicle, November 9, A17.
82. Waters, M. 2000. Remarks by Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), to the 2000 Shadow Convention, August 15, Los Angeles. Reprinted in The Drug Policy Letter 48, September-October 2000, 14-15. New York: Lindesmith Center/Drug Policy Foundation.
83. Wiley, D., R. Speiglman, H. Nguyen, J. Norris, and M. Beattie. 2004. Assessment of Santa Clara County SACPA Client Outcomes. San Jose: Alcohol and Drug Services Research Institute, Santa Clara County Department of Alcohol and Drug Services, and Speiglman Norris Associates.
84. Wolf, M. 2004. Comparing Drug Court and the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) in California. Master's thesis, Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California, Berkeley.