Proposition 36

Prop. 36 Case Law Update as of January 15, 2009 (PDF, 56 KB) (03/02/09)

Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime prevention Act 2003 Report (09/2004) (PDF, 709 KB)
This report presents detailed findings on the implementation of SACPA during its second year (July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003) and summarizes key findings across SACPA's first and second years. Findings describe the types of crime committed by offenders entering SACPA and subsequent probation violations and revocations and parolee recommitments to prison. Also described is the flow of offenders through the SACPA "pipeline" starting with referral of the offender to SACPA and continuing through assessment and treatment entry. In addition, the report covers offender management strategies employed by the counties; the relationship between offender management strategies and the flow of offenders through the SACPA pipeline; treatment placement, completion, and duration; and a review of evaluation progress and planning.

California Supreme Court Rules on Prop. 36 and DUI
In a decision that could have a substantial impact on California's Proposition 36, the state Supreme Court ruled on May 27 that people convicted of driving under the influence of drugs must go to jail and not into treatment programs. Citing the danger to the public from drugged drivers, among other reasons, the justices unanimously interpreted the initiative - which prescribes treatment and forbids incarceration for first-and second-time nonviolent offenses "related to the use of drugs" - to exclude DUI.

Read Supreme Court Opinion here (PDF, 159 KB)

Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act Second Annual Report to the Legislature (PDF)
This report provides information for the period from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2002, the first full operational year of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (SACPA). It incorporates information from the first report and presents findings from the university evaluation, as well as program information from the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP).

Summary of findings for the first full operational year of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 include the following:

• Over 30,000 people received treatment under SACPA in its first year.
• For over half of those offenders, this was their first treatment opportunity.
• Overall, treatment capacity expanded by 50 percent.
• SACPA client characteristics were similar to other treatment clients.

Proposition 36 Case Law Updates
A current listing of Proposition 36 cases compiled by Marc J. Nolan, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, California State Department of Justice. (Note: These summaries are meant as a research tools only.)

February 2005 (PDF, 38 KB)

June 1, 2004 (PDF, 142 KB)

Videos on Prop 36 Now Available
The Center for Judicial Education and Research (CJER) has produced two educational videotapes on Prop 36. Intro to Prop 36: Successful Strategies and Best Practices focuses on strategies for managing caseloads of various sizes, understanding fundamental Prop 36 concepts, using drug testing and other "checks" on client outcomes, among others. In Prop 36 & the Law: Appellate Decisions & Developing Case Law, experts discuss key areas of conflict in the law, as well as the impact of the law on judicial discretion and other issues. Obtain the order form online or contact CJER at (415) 865-7792 for more information.

What is Proposition 36?

Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Prop. 36) offers adults convicted of nonviolent drug possession offenses the opportunity for substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration. Treatment must be provided through ADP licensed or certified drug abuse treatment programs.

The Judicial Council's Proposition 36 Implementation Workgroup collaborated with the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP) to assist in the implementation process. Activities included education programs, assisting evaluation efforts, and acting as a clearinghouse for information, as noted in the following excerpt from the January-February 2001 issue of Court News.

"Proposition 36, which was approved by voters in the November 7, 2000, election, promises to substantially change the way drug offenders are treated by the courts. The initiative, which goes into effect on July 1, 2001, generally prescribes treatment rather than incarceration for non-violent drug offenses.

To assist trial courts in the implementation of this act, the Judicial Council has created a workgroup to identify all issues needing action in order to ensure the effective implementation of the measure for the public good and the administration of justice. The workgroup consists of several members of the Collaborative Justice Courts Advisory Committee and is chaired by Judge Darrell W. Stevens, Superior Court of Butte County.

In order to ensure broad-based participation by judicial officers and other stakeholders, the workgroup also sought representation from the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (ADP), the Office of the Attorney General, the legislative branch, the Department of Probation, appellate court justices, district attorneys, defense attorneys, drug court judges, drug court coordinators, and court executives."

Resources

Prop36.org

Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (DADP)
Information on Proposition 36 and the legislative report for first-year implementation, fiscal year 2001-2002.

Proposition 36 Workgroup Charge (PDF, 3 KB)
A comprehensive list of the Proposition 36 Implementation Workgroup's tasks and responsibilities.

Highlights of Proposition 36 (PDF, 14 KB)
A summary of the main points of Proposition 36.

Proposition 36 - Full Text Version (PDF, 30 KB)

Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs Regulations (PDF, 33 KB), California Code of Regulations, title 9, division 4, chapter 2.5.

Court News: January-February 2001
"Workgroup to Aid in Proposition 36 Implementation" (PDF, 8 KB)

Arizona Proposition 200: Drug Treatment and Education Fund (PDF, 61 KB)
Legislative Report, Fiscal Year 1997-1998.