Abstract
California voters had high hopes when they passed the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA, a.k.a. Proposition 36). The law, one of the most extensive diversion-to-treatment laws to date, was intended to divert and treat 36,000 drug offenders annually. Unfortunately the law has not lived up to voter or practitioner expectations. Insufficient funding derailed the legislation by making it impossible to provide offenders either appropriate substance abuse treatment or adequate probation supervision. Stakeholders expressed consternation with aspects of the legislation that, in their view, led to SACPA being less successful than it could have been. Specifically, the universal application of the treatment-in-lieu-of-incarceration law forced stakeholders to accommodate offenders unmotivated-to-change and unsuitable for many treatment settings; and prohibiting shock incarceration removed a deterrent to violating program rules. Based on information gathered through stakeholder surveys and interviews, four policy recommendations are offered to improve the effectiveness of SACPA.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
