"An Absolute Revolving Door": An Evaluation of Police Perception and Response to Proposition 36

Criminal Justice Policy Review

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 275-303

  Gardiner, Christine ^a  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

diversion to treatment; drug policy; police discretion; Proposition 36; SACPA; street level bureaucracy

Indexed keywords

EID: 84866402698     PISSN: 08874034     EISSN: 15523586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0887403411416557     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Aaronson D. E.,Dienes C. T.,Musheno M. C.Street-level law: Public policy and police discretion in decriminalizing public drunkenness.American Behavioral Scientist. 1981;25 (1): 75-105.
2. Aaronson D. E.,Musheno M. C.,Dienes C. T.Public policy and police discretion. New York, NY: Clark Boardman; 1984:.
3. Bayley D.,Shearing C.The new structure of policing: Description, conceptualization, and research agenda. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice; 2001:.
4. BoettcherC. (1995). Community policing: Is Santa Ana's acclaimed COP programme still a success? (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
5. BracherP. (1996). Mandatory arrests for domestic violence: The city of Cincinnati's simple solution to a complex problem. Cincinnati Law Review, 65, 155-182. Retrieved from http://teachlaw.law.uc.edu/current/experiences/publications/law-review.shtml.
6. Breyer S.Regulation and its reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1982:.
7. Brown M.Working the streets: Police discretion and the dilemmas of reform. New York, NY: Russell Sage; 1981:.
8. Substance abuse and treatment in California: Services are cost-effective to society. Sacramento, CA: Author; 1999:.
9. Chaiken J. M.,Chaiken M. R.Varieties in criminal behavior. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 1982:.
10. ChappellA. T.MacDonaldJ. M.ManzP. W. (2006). The organizational determinants of police arrest decisions. Crime and Delinquency, 52, 287-306. Retrieved from http://cad.sagepub.com/.
11. Fagan J.,Davis G.Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City.Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2000;28:457-504.
12. GardinerC. L. (2008). From inception to implementation: How SACPA has affected the case processing and sentencing of drug offenders in one California county. University of California, Irvine. Retrieved from http://hssfaculty.fullerton.edu/pscj/cgardiner/Gardiner_Diss_Prop36.pdf.
13. Gardiner C.,Urada D.,Anglin D.Criminal Justice Policy Review 0887403410397185. 2011;:.
14. Glaser B. G.Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press; 1978:.
15. Glaser B. G.,Strauss A. L.The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction; 1967:.
16. GoetzB.MitchellR. E. (2006). Pre-arrest/booking drug control strategies: Diversion to treatment, harm reduction, and police involvement. Contemporary Drug Problems, 33, 473-520. Retrieved from http://www.federallegalpublications.com/contemporary-drug-problems.
17. GoldkampJ. S.WhiteM. D.RobinsonJ. B. (2001). Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 27-72. Retrieved from http://www2.criminology.fsu.edu/~jdi/.
18. GoyerD.EmighJ. (2003). Roadway to Recovery: San Diego County's Response to Proposition 36. Perspectives, 27(2), 38.
19. Hawken A.,Anglin D. M.,Conner B. T.Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act Final Report (Chapter 6: Treatment Differences). Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2007:.
20. HerbertS. (1998). Police subculture reconsidered. Criminology, 36, 343-369. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0011-1384.
21. JennessV.GrattetR. (2005). The law-in-between: The effects of organizational perviousness on the policing of hate crime. Social Problems, 52, 337-359. Retrieved from http://www.sssp1.org/index.cfm/m/26.
22. Kagan R. A.Regulatory justice: Implementing a wage-price freeze. New York, NY: Russell Sage; 1978:.
23. KleinM. W. (1976, October). Issues and realities in police diversion programs. Crime and Delinquency, 22, 421-427. Retrieved from http://cad.sagepub.com/.
24. Lipsky M.Street-level bureaucracy. New York, NY: Russell Sage; 1980:.
25. LongshoreD.UradaD.EvansE.HserY.PrendergastM.HawkenA.EttnerS. (2004). Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (2003 report). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. Retrieved from http://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/html/reports.html.
26. Lurgio A.,Rosenbaum D.The challenge of community policing. Rosenbaum D., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994:53-72.
27. MarloweD. B. (2003, August). Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision. NIDA Perspectives, 4-15. Retrieved from http://www.nida.nih.gov/ascp/.
28. McCleary R.Dangerous men: The sociology of parole. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE; 1978:.
29. National Drug Intelligence Center. (2007, May). Intelligence Bulletin: Methamphetamine-related identity theft. Retrieved from http://www.usdoj.gov/ndic/pubs22/22972/index.htm.
30. NovakK.AlaridL.LucasW. (2003). Exploring officers' acceptance of community policing: Implications for policy implementation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 57-71. Retrieved from http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/366/description#description.
31. Phillips S.,Sobol J.Twenty years of mandatory arrest: Police decision making in the face of legal requirements.Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2010;21:98-118.
32. Pittman D.,Gordon C.Revolving door: A study of the chronic police case inebriate. Glencoe, IL: Free Press; 1958:.
33. Riley K. J.,Ebener P. A.,Chiesa J.,Turner S.,Ringel J.Drug offenders and the criminal justice system: Will Proposition 36 treat or create problems?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2000:.
34. RinaldoS.Kelly-ThomasI. (2005). Comparing California's Proposition 36 (SACPA) with similar legislation in other states and jurisdictions. Berkeley, CA: The Avisa Group. Retrieved from http://www.prop36.org/pdf/ComparisonProp36OtherStates.pdf.
35. Skolnick J.Justice without trial: Law enforcement in a democratic society. 1994). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in a democratic society (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan College Publishing. (Original work published 1966)New York, NY: Macmillan College Publishing; 1994:.
36. Skolnick J.,Bayley D.The new blue line: Police innovation in six American cities. New York, NY: Free Press; 1986:.
37. Strauss A. L.Qualitative analysis for social scientists. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 1987:.
38. Strauss A. L.,Corbin J.Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1990:.
39. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (2000).
40. Trojanowicz R.,Bucqueroux B.Community policing: A contemporary perspective. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson; 1990:.
41. UradaD.EvansE. (2008). Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2008 report (Chapter 2: Treatment). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. Retrieved from http://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/html/reports.html.
42. Urada D.,Gardiner C.,Anglin M.D.Stakeholder consensus and circumvention in drug diversion programs: findings from California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (Proposition 36).Journal of Drug Issues. 2011;41 (1): 45-68.
43. Urada D.,Longshore D.,Hawken A.Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act Final Report. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2007:.
44. VanderWaal C.,Chriqui J.,Bishop R.,McBride D.,Longshore D.State drug policy reform movement: The use of ballot initiatives and legislation to promote diversion to drug treatment.Journal of Drug Issues. 2006;36:619-648.
45. WaldeckS. (2000). Cops, community policing, and the social norms approach to crime control: Should one make us more comfortable with the other?Georgia Law Review, 34, 1253-1310.
46. WalkerS.KatzC. M. (1995). Less than meets the eye: Police department bias crime units. American Journal of Police, 14(1), 29-48. Retrieved from http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mcb/180.
47. Weisel D.,Eck J.The challenge of community policing. Rosenbaum D., ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994:53-72.
48. WelshW. N.PontellH. (1991). Counties in court: Interorganizational adaptations to jail litigation in California. Law and Society Review, 25(1), 73-101. Retrieved from http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0023-9216.
49. Willis J.,Mastrofski S.,Weisburd D.COMPSTAT in practice: An in-depth analysis of three cities. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum; 2003:.
50. Wilson J.Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1968:.
51. WordenR. (1989). Situational and attitudinal explanations of police behavior: A theoretical reappraisal and empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 23, 667-711. Retrieved from http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0023-9216.