UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs Integrated Substance Abuse Program University of California at Los Angeles
Proposition 36 Treatment System Impact (TSI) Project
Kern CountySacramento CountySan Francisco CountyRiverside CountySan Diego County

Home | Participating Counties | News | Publications | Presentations
FAQs | Staff | Links | Forms for Treatment Outcome Component

News

Dan Page, dpage@support.ucla.edu
(310) 794-2265
EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL
October 14, 2003

UCLA Study of Proposition 36 Impact on Five California Counties
Shows Increase in Drug Treatment Admissions in Law’s First Year

Drug abuse treatment admissions in five California counties rose as much as 27 percent in the year following implementation of Proposition 36, UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute researchers report. The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA), enacted by California voters in 2000 as Proposition 36, diverts non-violent drug offenders into county treatment programs.

The researchers found increases in drug abuse treatment in Kern (27 percent), Riverside (21 percent), Sacramento (17 percent) and San Diego (16 percent) counties - primarily in outpatient drug-free programs. The team found no increase in San Francisco County, a region with a high number of pre-existing alternatives to Proposition 36.

The UCLA researchers also found that Proposition 36 patients were more likely to be men, first-time admissions, employed full time, and users of methamphetamine and marijuana. Heroin users and injection drug users are less likely to participate in treatment through Proposition 36, and now comprise a smaller proportion of treatment patients. In addition, the research team noted a diverse range of implementation strategies in the five counties, as well as some challenges that need to be addressed

Funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the five-year study is examining key issues of Proposition 36 that influence treatment systems and patient outcomes, and will identify “best practice” approaches for treating drug-abusing offenders. The first-year analysis appears in the October edition of the peer-reviewed journal Evaluation Review.

“These increases in drug treatment clientele may be due to natural growth in the treatment population, but more plausibly can be attributed to Proposition 36,” said the study’s lead author Yih-Ing Hser, an investigator with the Institute’s Integrated Substance Abuse Programs. “Not surprisingly, our study identified some challenges that need to be addressed in the coming months. However, the progress we found toward full implementation of Proposition 36 and creative strategies pursued by each county were encouraging.”

SACPA represents a major shift in criminal-justice policy. Adults convicted of nonviolent, drug-related offenses and otherwise eligible for SACPA can now be sentenced to probation with drug treatment instead of either probation without treatment or incarceration. Offenders on probation or parole who commit nonviolent, drug-related offenses or who violate drug-related conditions of their release may also receive treatment.

Implementation strategies varied by county, reflecting regional needs and resources:

  • San Francisco does not require urine testing, whereas Sacramento does random tests by both treatment and probation staff, and Riverside, Kern, and San Diego rely more heavily on treatment providers to conduct urine testing.
  • Sacramento and San Francisco work with a limited number of treatment programs to provide services to Proposition 36 patients, whereas Kern, Riverside and San Diego have a more distributed system.
  • Kern does not include methadone maintenance programs for Proposition 36 patients; San Diego does not fund nor contract for methadone (detox or maintenance) programs for Proposition 36 patients (or any patient).

Common implementation challenges identified by UCLA Researchers included the following:

  • Difficulty identifying individuals who have co-occurring mental and substance use disorders, and accommodating them within Proposition 36 treatment options.
  • Lack of intensive treatment for patients with more severe substance abuse or mental disabilities.
  • Lack of housing for homeless patients.
  • Fiscal uncertainty as a result of the state budget crisis.

In addition to Hser, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs researchers involved in the study include Cheryl Teruya, Elizabeth Evans, Douglas Longshore, Christine Grella and David Farabee.

UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs is a unit of the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute. The UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute is an interdisciplinary research and education institute devoted to the understanding of complex human behavior, including the genetic, biological, behavioral and sociocultural underpinnings of normal behavior, and the causes and consequences of neuropsychiatric disorders.

More information about the Institute is available at www.npi.ucla.edu.

-UCLA-



Home | Participating Counties | News | Publications | Presentations
FAQs | Staff | Links | Forms for Treatment Outcome Component