Prop 36 Reports & Data

Choose a category below to view available reports.

Major Reports
Drug Policy Alliance
>	Prop. 36 Improving Lives, Delivering Results Released March 2006
Justice Policy Institute
>	Proposition 36: Five Years Later Released April 2006
UCLA
>	Adequate Funding Study/Year 5 Report The first Prop. 36 report to estimate the amount of funding adequate for Prop. 36--$228.6 million. Provides detail on clients entering in the fifth year (July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005). Released April 2007.
>	State/County Split of Prop. 36 Cost Savings Follow up to the Cost-Benefit Analysis breaking out saving that accrue to the sate and county governments. Over the long term, state share of savings is 93%. Released May 2006
>	Cost-Benefit Analysis of Prop. 36 A rigorous, comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of Prop. 36, focusing on savings from the first two years' worth of treatment clients. Shows how California saved over $173 million on the first-year cohort alone. Released April 2006
>	Year 3 Report The first Prop. 36 report with comparative tracking data (recidivism, employment, etc) for clients and non-clients, showing the impact of treatment. Provides detail on clients entering in the third year (July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004). Released August 2005. Read the Q&A about the report here.
>	Year 2 Report The first Prop. 36 report with treatment completion rates (for Year 1 clients). Provides detail on clients entering in the second year (July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003). Also some discussion of offender management strategies. Released September 2004
>	Year 1 Report First-ever annual report from UCLA providing detail on clients who entered treatment in the first year (July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002). Released July 2003
Avisa Group
>	Proposition 36 Today: A Study of California Stakeholders in 10 Counties Released April 2005
>	Comparing California's Proposition 36 (SACPA) with Similar Legislation in Other States and Jurisdictions Released March 2005
CJCJ
>	An Examination of California Drug Policy, Prop. 36 Study reveals that California continues to lead the nation in drug offender imprisonment and that California counties that most vigorously pursued harsh enforcement strategies did not experience greater declines in drug use or crime. Released November 2002
>	Prop. 36 Reduces Felony Drug Possession Prison Admissions Study shows substance abuse treatment increasingly utilized in place of incarceration for an increasing number of low-level drug offenders, leading to a 30% decrease in the rate of felony drug possession prison admissions. Released October 2002
Back to Top
State & County Data
State
>	County-by-County Treatment Show Rates & Completion Rates (Year 4)
>	Year 4 Annual Report (Final)
>	Year 4 Annual Report (Interim)
>	Year 3 Annual Report
>	County-by-County Treatment Completion Rates (Years 1 & 2)
>	Year 2 Annual Report
>	Year 1 Annual Report
Counties
	Los Angeles County
>	Year 4 Annual Report July 1, 2004-June 30, 2005
>	Year 3 Annual Report July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004
>	Year 2 Annual Report July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003
>	Year 1 Annual Report July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002
	Alameda County
>	Year 3 Annual Report July 1, 2003-June 30, 2004
>	Year 2 Annual Report July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003
>	Year 1, Annual Report July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002
	Santa Clara County
>	Academic Study Covers a 9-Month Sample of 1,190 Clients Focuses on lower arrest rates and jail time during and after Prop. 36 treatment. Released June 2004
Legislative Analyst's Office
>	Cost-Benefit Analysis of Prop. 36 An overview of the key fiscal provisions of Proposition 36, factors for legislative consideration, and fiscal issues for future consideration by policy committees. Released November 2005
Back to Top
Legislation
Hostile Legislation (Senate Bill 803/SB 1137)
The most aggressive attempt to amend Prop. 36 to date took place in the 2005-06 legislative session. The legislature was responsible for funding Prop. 36 for the first time in the budget produced in June and July 2006, so changes to Prop. 36 became part of the budget process, ultimately enacted as a budget "trailer bill". The legislation began as Senate Bill 903 introduced by Sen. Ducheny, and was enacted as Senate Bill 1137. (The law was immediately blocked from implementation by court action, however. See Legal Affairs Section below for more information.)
>	Full Text As Enacted This is the final bill as approved by both houses and signed by the governor. Due to convetions of the Legislature's bill production process, this final version does not show how the bill changes the original text of Prop. 36. Released July 2006
>	Legislative Website for Detailed Bill Status SB 803 went through many iterations over 18 months. A full legislative history, with committee analyses, is posted here. 2005-2006
>	Full Text As Originally Introduced The first version of the bill, provided here, was entirely the product of a coalition of law enforcement groups. This legislation was circulated in late 2004 among Prop. 36 stakeholders as the "law enforcement working draft." San Diego District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis urged Sen. Ducheny to file the draft as a bill. Released February 2005
Back to Top
Legal Affairs/Litigation
>	Constitutional Challenge to SB 1137
>	Second Annual Review of Proposition 36 in California's Courts The first Prop. 36 report with treatment completion rates (for Year 1 clients). Provides detail on clients entering in the second year (July 1, 2002-June 30, 2003). Also, some discussion of offender management strategies. Released October 2003
Back to Top
Prop. 36 History
>	Original Full Text of Proposition 36
>	Final Vote Totals Released November 2000
>	Ballot Pamphlet Materials Released 2000
>	Yes on Prop. 36 Campaign Website
Prop. 36 Statewide Advisory Group
	For five and a half years, the Statewide Advisory Group (SAG) provided a forum for stakeholders to advise the state Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs (DADP) on the implementation of Prop. 36. A wide range of specialties were represented (see member list as of May 2005), including county program administrators, law enforcement, physicians, judges, treatment associations and the original proponents of Prop. 36. The group was disbanded in July 2006 after a contentious legislative battle over Senate Bill 1137 that had divided the group. Meeting summaries were prepared by the state DADP.
Meeting Summaries:
	Apr. 21, 2006 Feb. 3, 2006 Oct. 27, 2005 Aug. 5, 2005 Apr. 22, 2005 Feb. 18, 2005 Dec. 2, 2004 Oct. 22, 2004 Aug. 27, 2004 June 18, 2004 Apr. 2, 2004 Feb. 6, 2004 Dec. 12, 2003 Oct. 29, 2003 Sept. 19, 2003 May 30, 2003 Mar. 21, 2003 Dec. 13, 2002 Oct. 11, 2002 Sept. 16, 2002 May 10, 2002 Feb. 8, 2002 Dec. 14, 2001 Oct. 5, 2001 Sept. 6, 2001 July 11-12, 2001 May 15, 2001 Apr. 11, 2001 Mar. 14, 2001 Feb. 14, 2001
Back to Top
Other
Progress Reports
>	Prop. 36 and Drug Court Comparison Despite significant differences between the systems, drug courts and Prop. 36 have produced similar, favorably comparable results. Released June 2005
>	Prop. 36 Year 1 Progress Report Report summarizes impact of Prop. 36, which, since July 1, 2001, has been successfully diverting tens of thousands of low-level, non-violent drug offenders convicted solely of possession for personal use into community-based treatment instead of incarceration. Released July 2002
>	Prop. 36 Implementation Update This updated progress report describes developments in implementation at the state level and in the largest counties. Released April 2002
>	Prop. 36 Implementation Report This preliminary progress report describes how the state and the largest counties first implemented Prop. 36. Released March 2002
>	Prop. 36 Report Cards These 'report cards' grade 11 counties, encompassing 75% of the state population, on the quality of their implementation plans. Released June 2001
California Drug Courts Reports
>	Comprehensive Drug Court Implementation Act of 1999: Final Report Released March 2005
>	Comprehensive Drug Court Implementation Act of 1999: Interim Report Released March 2004
>	Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998: Technical Report Released June 2002
>	Drug Court Partnership Act of 1998: Final Report to Legislature Released March 2002
>	Drug Court Effectiveness: A Review of California Evaluation Studies, 1995-1999 Written by Joseph Guydish, Ellen Wolfe, Barbara Tajima, and William J. Woods Released Fall 2001
Back to Top