|
Abstract
|
Research Summary:
In November 2000, California voters approved the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA), also known as "Proposition 36," which gives adults convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses the option of participating in drug treatment in lieu of incarceration. Using data from an earlier evaluation of community treatment programs, we examined the subsample of clients admitted to drug treatment during the law's first six months (July 1, 2001 and December 31, 2001; N = 3,748) in 13 counties to describe an initial cohort of SACPA clients (SACPA; N = 688) regarding their participation in treatment and their subsequent rearrest outcomes. These data were compared with other criminal justice-referred clients (Non-SACPA-CJ; N = 1,178) and with clients who entered treatment without a current criminal justice status (Non-CJ; N = 1,882). Relative to Non-CJ clients, CJ (SACPA or Non-SACPA) clients with severe drug problems were significantly less likely to be treated in residential programs. Subsequent analyses further revealed a significant severity by modality interaction, with high-severity/outpatient clients being most likely to be rearrested on a drug-related charge in the 12 months after treatment admission. Although the prevalence of arrests decreased for all three groups after treatment admission, SACPA clients remained more likely to be rearrested for a drug crime even after controlling for the interaction between drug use severity and treatment modality. Policy Implications:
These findings underscore the importance of client-treatment matching (based on addiction severity) and of actively applying legal pressure to increase treatment retention and maximize potential treatment benefits.
Language: en |