Treatment Entry Barriers Among California's Proposition 36 Offenders

Overview

Journal J Subst Abuse Treat

Specialty Psychiatry

Date 2008 Jun 3

PMID 18514474

Citations 11

Authors

Elizabeth Evans

Libo Li

Yih-Ing Hser

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

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.

Citing Articles

Barriers to addiction treatment among formerly incarcerated adults with substance use disorders.

Owens M, Chen J, Simpson T, Timko C, Williams E Addict Sci Clin Pract. 2018; 13(1):19.

PMID: 30126452 PMC: 6102909. DOI: 10.1186/s13722-018-0120-6.

Comparative Effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score Matching.

Evans E, Li L, Urada D, Anglin M Crime Delinq. 2014; 60(6):909-938.

PMID: 25342859 PMC: 4203433. DOI: 10.1177/0011128710382342.

Criminal justice outcomes after engagement in outpatient substance abuse treatment.

Garnick D, Horgan C, Acevedo A, Lee M, Panas L, Ritter G J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013; 46(3):295-305.

PMID: 24238717 PMC: 3947052. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.10.005.

A latent class approach to treatment readiness corresponds to a transtheoretical ("Stages of Change") model.

Harrell P, Trenz R, Scherer M, Martins S, Latimer W J Subst Abuse Treat. 2013; 45(3):249-56.

PMID: 23706606 PMC: 3968940. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2013.04.004.

Offender diversion into substance use disorder treatment: the economic impact of California's proposition 36.

Anglin M, Nosyk B, Jaffe A, Urada D, Evans E Am J Public Health. 2013; 103(6):1096-102.

PMID: 23597352 PMC: 3698729. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301168.

References

Wiley D, Beattie M, Nguyen H, Puckett K, Banerjee K, Poon W . When you assume...the reality of implementing a legally mandated substance abuse treatment program. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2004; Suppl 2:175-80. DOI: 10.1080/02791072.2004.10400053. View

Monahan J, Hoge S, Lidz C, Roth L, Bennett N, Gardner W . Coercion and commitment: understanding involuntary mental hospital admission. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1995; 18(3):249-63. DOI: 10.1016/0160-2527(95)00010-f. View

McLellan A, Luborsky L, Woody G, OBrien C . An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients. The Addiction Severity Index. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1980; 168(1):26-33. DOI: 10.1097/00005053-198001000-00006. View

Rapp R, Xu J, Carr C, Lane D, Wang J, Carlson R . Treatment barriers identified by substance abusers assessed at a centralized intake unit. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2006; 30(3):227-35. PMC: 1986793. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.01.002. View

Corsi K, Kwiatkowski C, Booth R . Treatment entry and predictors among opiate-using injection drug users. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2007; 33(1):121-7. DOI: 10.1080/00952990601091093. View

Pelissier B . Gender differences in substance use treatment entry and retention among prisoners with substance use histories. Am J Public Health. 2004; 94(8):1418-24. PMC: 1448465. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.94.8.1418. View

Jackson R, Wernicke R, Haaga D . Hope as a predictor of entering substance abuse treatment. Addict Behav. 2003; 28(1):13-28. DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4603(01)00210-6. View

Hser Y, Maglione M, Polinsky M, Anglin M . Predicting drug treatment entry among treatment-seeking individuals. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1998; 15(3):213-20. DOI: 10.1016/s0740-5472(97)00190-6. View

Wild T . Social control and coercion in addiction treatment: towards evidence-based policy and practice. Addiction. 2006; 101(1):40-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01268.x. View

10.

Wild T, Cunningham J, Ryan R . Social pressure, coercion, and client engagement at treatment entry: a self-determination theory perspective. Addict Behav. 2006; 31(10):1858-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2006.01.002. View

11.

Donovan D, Rosengren D, Downey L, Cox G, Sloan K . Attrition prevention with individuals awaiting publicly funded drug treatment. Addiction. 2001; 96(8):1149-60. DOI: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.96811498.x. View

12.

Gariti P, Alterman A, Volpicelli J, Prentice N, OBrien C . Effects of an appointment reminder call on patient show rates. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1995; 12(3):207-12. DOI: 10.1016/0740-5472(95)00019-2. View

13.

Hser Y, Teruya C, Evans E, Longshore D, Grella C, Farabee D . Treating drug-abusing offenders. Initial findings from a five-county study on the impact of California's Proposition 36 on the treatment system and patient outcomes. Eval Rev. 2003; 27(5):479-505. DOI: 10.1177/0193841X03255774. View

14.

Redko C, Rapp R, Carlson R . Waiting Time as a Barrier to Treatment Entry: Perceptions of Substance Users. J Drug Issues. 2008; 36(4):831-852. PMC: 2396562. DOI: 10.1177/002204260603600404. View

15.

Lash S, Gilmore J, Burden J, Weaver K, Blosser S, Finney M . The impact of contracting and prompting substance abuse treatment entry: a pilot trial. Addict Behav. 2005; 30(3):415-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2004.05.026. View

16.

Hser Y, Teruya C, Brown A, Huang D, Evans E, Anglin M . Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: treatment capacity and displacement. Am J Public Health. 2006; 97(1):104-9. PMC: 1716257. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.069336. View

17.

Klein D, Miller R, Noble A, Speiglman R . Incorporating a public health approach in drug law: lessons from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California's Proposition 36. Milbank Q. 2004; 82(4):723-57. PMC: 2690186. DOI: 10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00329.x. View

18.

Siegal H, Falck R, Wang J, Carlson R . Predictors of drug abuse treatment entry among crack-cocaine smokers. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2002; 68(2):159-66. DOI: 10.1016/s0376-8716(02)00192-8. View

19.

Stasiewicz P, STALKER R . A comparison of three "interventions" on pretreatment dropout rates in an outpatient substance abuse clinic. Addict Behav. 1999; 24(4):579-82. DOI: 10.1016/s0306-4603(98)00082-3. View

20.

McLellan A, Kushner H, Metzger D, Peters R, Smith I, Grissom G . The Fifth Edition of the Addiction Severity Index. J Subst Abuse Treat. 1992; 9(3):199-213. DOI: 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-s. View