In the United States, state governments legally authorize outpatient substance abuse treatment programs. In some states, programs are certified or accredited (ideal standards). Other states license programs (minimal standards). Additionally, some states authorize programs through "deemed status", which is afforded to programs attaining accreditation from a national accrediting body. Primary legal research and the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services' (N-SSATS) data were used to examine the relationships between state authorization type (certification/accreditation vs licensure with and without deemed status) and outpatient treatment program practices. Programs in certification/accreditation (vs licensure) states had significantly higher odds of offering wrap-around and continuing care/after care services associated with better long-term treatment outcome. Programs in states that allowed for certification/accreditation with deemed status had significantly lower odds of infectious disease testing, but higher odds of providing group and family counseling. Results suggest that state authorization type may impact services offered by outpatient treatment programs.

No abstract

No abstract

There is a need in the literature for research describing disposition severity differences between specific drug and alcohol law violations within the context of community characteristics. We conducted an exploratory study of prosecutor-reported juvenile disposition severity by both specific drug charge and community context using a national sample of prosecutors from communities surrounding schools participating in the nationally representative Monitoring the Future survey. Results indicated (a) strong within-and between-substance disposition severity variance as well as (b) evidence for differential effects of both prosecutor case load and community characteristics, including community income, ethnicity, and region.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

For most of the past 25 years, the federal government and many states have adopted a tough, punitive approach to drug offenses. In recent years, changes in public perception and state budget shortfalls have spurred a policy reform movement across the political spectrum that advocates diverting low-level, nonviolent drug offenders into treatment rather than incarcerating them. In nine of the 24 states where ballot initiatives are permitted, citizens have attempted or have successfully placed initiatives on the ballot since 1996. In an additional 12 states, drug policy reformers have successfully passed legislation that allows for diversion. In this paper we briefly trace the history of the diversion-to-treatment policy reform movement, identify the successful diversion-related ballot initiatives and enacted laws from each state, and, using a qualitative content analysis approach, describe the nature and extent of those laws. Finally, we discuss the implications of these differences for state criminal justice policies.