Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #115916

Curtis VanderWaal, PhD, ACSW, The Institute for the Prevention of Addictions, Andrews University, 011 Nethery Hall, Barrien Springs, MI 49104, 616-471-6005, vanderwa@andrews.edu, Jamie F. Chriqui, PhD, MHS, Center for Health Policy and Legislative Analysis, The MayaTech Corporation, 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3921, Rachel M. Bishop, Institute for Prevention of Addictions, Andrews University, 8408 Westwood, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, Duane C. McBride, PhD, Institute for the Prevention of Addictions, Andrews University, Highway 31, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, Doug Longshore, PhD, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles, 1640 Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 200, Los Angeles, CA 90025, and Mioara Diaconu, MSW, Department of Social Work, University of Texas, Arlington, 400 Yates, Apt. 223, Arlington, TX 76010.

Over the past 25 years, the federal government and many states have adopted a “get tough” approach to drug offenses by introducing mandatory minimum sentencing, three strikes laws, and high monetary penalties for drug possession and use. Consequently, drug offenses have been a leading cause of the recent and rapid population increases in federal and state prisons. In direct opposition to this punitive approach, a policy reform movement that advocates diverting low-level, non-violent offenders into treatment has recently gained prominence in a number of states. While California's Proposition 36 is the most notable example of this trend, seven of the 23 states where such actions are permitted have attempted or successfully placed such initiatives on the ballot since 1996. In an additional 15 states, legislators have enacted laws that divert low-level, non-violent offenders into drug treatment. In this presentation, we trace the history of the diversion-to-treatment policy reform movement and identify the successful diversion-related ballot initiatives and enacted laws from each state. Using a qualitative content analysis approach, we also describe the primary components of those laws, including variance in eligibility and program entry requirements, case disposition and sentencing criteria, judicial sanction options, and supervision and monitoring requirements. For example, preliminary findings indicate that almost 60% of enacted ballots/bills allow or require judges to stay charges until treatment is completed, with 35% requiring judges to either expunge or dismiss charges upon successful treatment completion. Finally, we discuss the implications of these changes for state public health and criminal justice policies.

Learning Objectives: