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

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 97, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 104-109

  Hser, Yih Ing ^a   Teruya, Cheryl ^a   Brown, Alison H ^a   Huang, David ^a   Evans, Elizabeth ^a   Anglin, M Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 36; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; LAW; METHADONE TREATMENT; OFFENDER; OUTPATIENT CARE; PATIENT REFERRAL; STAFF; SUBSTANCE ABUSE; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CALIFORNIA; COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES; DRUG AND NARCOTIC CONTROL; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HEALTH CARE SURVEYS; HEALTH SERVICES ACCESSIBILITY; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT ADMISSION; PRISONS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; PUBLIC HEALTH ADMINISTRATION; SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTERS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 33845918779     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.069336     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. McGuire J, Rosenheck RA, Kasprow WJ. Health status, service use, and costs among veterans receiving outreach services in jail or community settings. Psychiatr Serv. 2003;54:201-207.
2. Peters RH, LeVasseur ME, Chandler RK. Correctional treatment for co-occurring disorders: results of a national survey. Behav Sci Law. 2004;22:563-584.
3. Raimer BG, Stobo JD. Health care delivery in the Texas prison system: the role of academic medicine. JAMA 2004;292:485-489.
4. Rich JD, Holmes L, Salas C, et al. Successful linkage of medical care and community services for HIV-positive offenders being released from prison. J Urban Health. 2001;78:279-289.
5. Wright NM, Tompkins CN, Jones L. Exploring risk perception and behaviour of homeless injecting drug users diagnosed with hepatitis C. Health Soc Care Community. 2005;13:75-83.
6. Anglin MD, Hser Y, Grella CE. Drug addiction and treatment careers among clients in DATOS. Psychol Addict Behav. 1997;11:308-323.
7. Hubbard RL, Craddock SG, Flynn PM, Anderson J, Etheridge RM. Overview of 1-year follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychol Addict Behav. 1997;11:261-278.
8. Simpson DD, Joe GW, Fletcher BW, Hubbard RL, Anglin MD. A national evaluation of treatment outcomes for cocaine dependence. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:507-514.
9. Anglin MD, McGlothlin WH. Outcome of narcotic addict treatment in California. In: Tims FM, Ludford JP, eds. Drug Abuse Treatment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress, and Prospects. Rockville, Md: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1984:106-128. NIDA research monograph 51.
10. Ball JC, Ross A. The Effectiveness of Methadone Maintenance Treatment. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1991.
11. Tims FM, Ludford JP. Drug Abuse Treatment Evaluation: Strategies, Progress, and Prospects. Rockville, Md: National Institute on Drug Abuse: 1984.
12. Gerstein DRE, Harwood HJE, eds. Treating Drug Problems, Volume 1: A Study of the Evolution, Effectiveness, and Financing of Public and Private Drug Treatment Systems. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1990.
13. Ettner S, Huang D, Evans E, et al. Benefit-cost in the California treatment outcome project: does substance abuse treatment "pay for itself"? Health Sen Res. 2006;41:192-213.
14. National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Dept of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Office of Applied Studies page. Available at: http//oas.samhsa.gov/nhsda.htm. Accessed April 7, 2005.
15. Longshore D, Urada D, Evans E, Hser Y, Prendergast M, Ettner S. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: 2002 Report. Sacramento, Calif: Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs; 2003.
16. Hser YI, Anglin MD, Grella C, Longshore D, Prendergast ML. Drug treatment careers: a conceptual framework and existing research findings. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1997;14:543-558.
17. Hser YI, Teruya C, Evans EA, Longshore D, Grella C, Farabee D. 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. Eval Rev. 2003;27:479-505.
18. Hser Y, Evans E, Teruya C, et al. The California Treatment Outcome Project (CalTOP): Final Report to the California State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, Calif: University of California, Los Angeles; 2002.
19. Friedmann PD, Alexander JA, Jin L, D'Aunno TA. On-site primary care and mental health services in outpatient drug abuse treatment units. J Behav Health Serv Res. 1999;26:80-94.
20. Marsh JC, D'Aunno TA, Smith BD. Increasing access and providing social services to improve drug abuse treatment for women with children. Addiction. 2000;95:1237-1247.
21. McLellan AT, Hagan TA, Levine M, et al. Supplemental social services improve outcomes in public addiction treatment. Addiction. 1998;93:1489-1499.
22. Hser YI, Evans E, Huang D, Anglin DM. Relationship between drug treatment services, retention, and outcomes. Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55:767-774.
23. Farabee D, Hser T, Anglin MD, Huang Y. Recidivism among an early cohort of California's Proposition 36 offenders. Clin Public Policy. 2004;3:563-584.
24. Friedmann PD, Lemon SC, Stein MD, D'Aunno TA. Accessibility of addiction treatment: results from a national survey of outpatient substance abuse treatment organizations. Health Serv Res. 2003;38:887-903.
25. Stewart D, Gossop M, Marsden J. Increased case-loads in methadone treatment programs: implications for the delivery of services and retention in treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2004;27:301-306.