Band-Aids and Bullhorns

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.

“An Absolute Revolving Door”

“…“You can’t expect any change in regards to offenders because there is no accountability, there is no punishment or penalty for repeat offenders” (KKU, patrol officer). Treatment professionals and other criminal justice practitioners throughout the state have echoed the same concerns voiced by these law enforcement officers (Gardiner, Urada, & Anglin, 2011).…”