Overview of Drug Treatment for Drug-Abusing Criminal Offenders

Insights from California's Proposition 36 and Arizona's Proposition 200

Published in: Knowledge Assets web site (created by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Substance Abuse Policy Research Program; February 2009)

Posted on RAND.org on June 13, 2017

by Beau Kilmer, Martin Y. Iguchi

Read More

Access further information on this document at saprp.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

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 California's Proposition 36 and Arizona's 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.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.