Californias Proposition 36 Evaluation Douglas Longshore, Darren Urada, YihIng Hser,and M' Douglas An

1
Californias Proposition 36 EvaluationDouglas
Longshore, Darren Urada, Yih-Ing Hser,and M.
Douglas AnglinPresented by Richard RawsonJoin
Together Public HearingSanta Fe, New MexicoJan
30, 2006
2
Increase in California Prison Population, Drug
Offenses, 1980-1999
Source California Department of Corrections.
3
Increase in California Prison Population, Drug
Offenses, 1970-1999Rate per 100,000 Population
Source California Department of Corrections.
4
Proposition 36Substance Abuse Crime Prevention
Act (SACPA)

• 2000 Ballot Measure Passed by 61 of California
  voters in 2000
• Authorized 600,000,000 in new funds for
  implementation. 2001-2006.
• Drug offenses non-sales, non-manufacturing.
• Restrictions on offenders with histories of
  serious or violent crimes
• Results in community supervision and treatment
  instead of
• Incarceration
• Supervision without treatment

5
ImplementationShow Rates
6
ImplementationClient CharacteristicsPrimary
Drug
7
ImplementationTreatment PlacementFirst Three
Years (7/01 - 6/04) Combined
8
ImplementationTreatment CompletionFirst and
Second Years (7/01 - 6/03)
7/1/01 6/30/02 7/1/02 6/30/03
9
Treatment Summary

• Most clients are sent to outpatient drug-free
• Heroin users are rarely sent to methadone
• 34 of clients complete treatment
• Meth users are as likely to complete as cocaine
  and marijuana users
• Heroin users are least likely to complete

10
Re-offendingNew ArrestsOne Year After Offense,
Year 1 (7/01 - 6/02) Population
11
Re-offendingNew Felony ArrestsOne Year After
Offense, Year 1 (7/01 - 6/02) Population
12
Re-offendingNew Misdemeanor ArrestsOne Year
After Offense, Year 1 (7/01 - 6/02) Population
13
Any Work in the Past 30 Days
a,b Group differences are statistically
significant, p .04. All three pre-post
differences are statistically significant, p
lt.0001.
14
Any Drug Use in the Past 30 Days
Group differences are statistically significant.
aplt.05, bplt.02.
15
Conclusion

• 70 of referrals have entered treatment
• Methamphetamine is the most common drug
• Half are in treatment for the first time
• 34 of clients have completed treatment
• Initial re-offending is lowest for completers
• Employment is highest for completers
• Abstinence is highest for completers, but overall
  drug use outcomes are uneven

16
SACPA Phase 2

• Funding allocated in SACPA ends June 30, 2006.
• The SACPA provisions continues indefinitely, but
  funding does not automatically continue.
• During the past year there has been intense
  negotiation about revisions in SACPA phase 2.
• One group wants same provisions (led by Soros
  group and CSAM)
• One group wants drug court-like sanctions (led
  by judges, DAs, police and Dept of Alcohol and
  Drug programs).
• Govenor Schwarzenegger has proposed 120,000,000
  for 2006-2007 BUT, has made it clear that a
  revised SACPA program must be passed by
  legislature.

17
Prop 26 (SACPA) Is it good policy?

• Approximately 200,000 individuals will have
  received treatment over program
• Final report currently in process
• Fiscal impact appears quite positive
• No group has come out to revoke SACPA
• Disagreements concern exact provisions
• Failure to pass revised SACPA provisions could
  result in funding responsibility being passed on
  to counties.