AJPH
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

AJPH First Look, published online ahead of print Nov 30, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Data Supplement
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
AJPH.2005.069336v1
97/1/104    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hser, Y.-I.
Right arrow Articles by Anglin, M. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hser, Y.-I.
Right arrow Articles by Anglin, M. D.
Related Collections
Right arrow Health Care Facilities/Services
Right arrow Access to Care
Right arrow Other Health Service Delivery
Right arrow Drugs
January 2007, Vol 97, No. 1 | American Journal of Public Health 104-109
© 2007 American Public Health Association
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.069336

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE

Impact of California’s Proposition 36 on the Drug Treatment System: Treatment Capacity and Displacement

Yih-Ing Hser, PhD, Cheryl Teruya, PhD, Alison H. Brown, PhD, David Huang, PhD, Elizabeth Evans, MA and M. Douglas Anglin, PhD

Yih-Ing Hser, Cheryl Teruya, Alison H. Brown, David Huang, Elizabeth Evans, and M. Douglas Anglin are with the Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Yih-Ing Hser, PhD, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, 1640 S. Sepulveda Blvd, Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025 (e-mail: yhser{at}ucla.edu).

Objectives. California’s Proposition 36 offers nonviolent drug offenders community-based treatment as an alternative to incarceration or probation without treatment. We examined how treatment capacity changed to accommodate Proposition 36 clients and whether displacement of other clients was an unintended consequence.

Methods. Treatment admissions were compared for the year before and 2 years after the law was enacted. Surveys of county administrators and treatment providers were conducted in Kern, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Francisco counties.

Results. The number of Proposition 36 offenders admitted to treatment continued to increase in the state (approximately 32000 in Year 1 and 48000 in Year 2) and in the 5 counties; total treatment admissions stabilized in Year 2 after increasing in Year 1. Voluntary clients decreased by 8000 each year statewide, but the change varied across counties. One third of treatment providers reported decreased treatment availability for non–Proposition 36 clients in Year 2.

Conclusion. Despite expanded treatment capacity (mostly in outpatient treatment), indirect evidence suggests that displacement of voluntary clients may have occurred in part because of the demand for treatment by Proposition 36 clients.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Public Health Association