Overview of Drug Treatment for Drug-Abusing Criminal Offenders: Insights from California's Proposition 36 and Arizona's Proposition 200
Beau Kilmer, Ph.D., RAND Drug Policy Research Center, and Martin Y. Iguchi, Ph.D., UCLA School of Public Health, Department of Community Health Sciences
Angela Hawken, Ph.D., School of Public Policy, Pepperdine University, Yih-Ing Hser, Ph.D.,
UCLA Center for Advancing Longitudinal Drug Abuse Research, Douglas B. Marlowe, J.D., Ph.D., National Association of Drug Court Professionals
A number of states have considered laws or ballot initiatives intended to divert drug-abusing criminal offenders into treatment programs instead of prison or jail. Most of the research on these initiatives focuses on Californias Proposition 36 and Arizonas Proposition 200. Proposition 36 refers to the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, which was passed by 61% of California voters in November 2000. The Act increased state funding for treatment and allowed eligible non-violent drug offenders who plead guilty to enter drug treatment instead of receiving a traditional sentence. Proposition 200 refers to the Drug Medicalization, Prevention and Control Act, which was passed by 64% of Arizona voters in November 1996. The Act requires a court to sentence first- and second-time non-violent offenders who are convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance to probation and drug treatment. Proposition 200 also established the Drug Treatment and Education Fund which is funded by revenues from a liquor tax. It is also important to note that some states have rejected related ballot initiatives.
Date Updated :
Kilmer, B. and Iguchi, M.; Drug Treatment for Drug-Abusing Criminal Offenders: Insights from Californias Proposition 36 and Arizonas Proposition 200 Knowledge Asset, Web site created by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Substance Abuse Policy Research Program; February 2009.,http://saprp.org/knowledgeassets/knowledge_detail.cfm?KAID=17