Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders

Abstract

To explore why some Proposition 36 offenders do not enter drug treatment, we analyzed self-reported and administrative data to compare the characteristics, perceptions, and rearrest rates of 124 untreated and 1,335 treated offenders assessed by 30 sites in five California counties. Offenders were comparable in many domains at assessment; however, untreated offenders were younger, not employed, more criminally severe, and less motivated for treatment. To avoid incarceration was the primary reason for choosing Proposition 36, but there were fewer untreated offenders who felt ready for treatment (12.9% vs. 35.7%) and there were more who accepted the Proposition 36 program only upon recommendation by others (37.9% vs. 11.7%). Reasons for not entering treatment included rearrest (31.6%), no desire for treatment (23.9%), and assignment to a program that was too far away (11.1%). Both groups had fewer total arrests after assessment, but recidivism was higher among untreated offenders. Understanding untreated Proposition 36 offenders can aid efforts to improve treatment entry rates and related outcomes.

Criminal justice outcomes after engagement in outpatient substance abuse treatment

“…Substance abuse treatment has been shown to result in fewer arrests (Luchansky et al, 2006), lower risk of felony convictions (Luchansky, He, Longhi, Krupski, & Stark, 2006; Luchansky, Nordlund, et al, 2006), declines in self-reported illegal activities (Hubbard, Craddock, & Anderson, 2003), lower re-arrests among clients participating in treatment in lieu of incarceration for drug-related offenses (Evans, Huang, & Hser, 2011), lower conviction rates (Gossop, et al, 2005), and lower arrests for both all types of crimes and specifically property and drug-related crimes (Evans, Li, & Hser, 2008). …”

Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment

“…This issue of treatment as a missed opportunity could seriously jeopardize the effectiveness of Prop 36 as a criminal justice diversion option in California, and it highlights the need to identify strategies for improving both policies and programming that guide the Prop 36 program (Little Hoover Commission, 2008). Issues related to the problem of treatment no-shows have been examined elsewhere (Evans et al, in press). Increased understanding of barriers to treatment completion as well as offender attitudes and experiences of treatment dropout are needed to help stakeholders make appropriate modifications to improve the effectiveness of the Prop 36 program.…”

Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36

“…For example, studies have documented offender characteristics and treatment needs (Anglin et al, 2007; Brecht, Stein, Evans, Murphy, & Longshore, 2009; Hser et al, 2003; Longshore et al, 2005; Prendergast, Greenwell, Farabee, & Hser, 2009; Urada et al, 2009; Wiley et al, 2004), treatment services utilization and outcomes (Cosden et al, 2006; Evans, Hser, & Huang 2009; Evans, Li, & Hser, 2008; Farabee, Hser, Anglin, & Huang, 2004; Fosados, Evans, & Hser, 2007; Hser, Evans, Teruya, Huang, & Anglin 2007), and cost effectiveness (Hawken, 2008; Longshore, Hawken, Urada, & Anglin, 2006). …”