Substance Use Disorder Treatment Provision in the Context of AB 109 and Proposition 47
*Names in bold indicate Presenter
My research describes the context of criminal justice in California before Realignment. This context is fundamental to understand why service provision, especially SUD treatment, is so important for the success of Realignment. I then describe the specific provisions of AB 109 that governed how county governments could supervise (or treat) AB 109-affected individuals, and how Proposition 47 became an obstacle to service provision for the counties. I argue that this policy description is essential for informing how policymakers and practitioners can adequately provide the services that will lead to the success of Realignment (i.e. reducing recidivism).
Finally, I apply these policies to SUD treatment provision in Los Angeles County. I describe the systems in place before Realignment and the County’s plan to implement AB 109. Research on social service provision demonstrates the potential pitfalls LA County will face in its implementation. I introduce some descriptive data on treatment provision for AB 109 probationers and show that less than half of those referred to treatment ever make it to at least one treatment session and that Proposition 47 induced even fewer individuals into treatment. This motivates upcoming research using LA County data on treatment and criminal justice outcomes that will explore the effect of Proposition 47 on treatment, and subsequently, recidivism rates.