{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015364916773367477, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0076824583866837385, 'mean_word_length': 6.04054054054054, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Early Implementation of Proposition 36: Criminal Justice and Treatment System Issues in Eight Counties

Abstract This article examines key differences emerging in implementation of California's Proposition 36 voter initiative across eight diverse large, medium, and small counties. The data were collected in 2001 in a key informant survey of county policymakers. Unlike most major California criminal justice initiatives of recent years, Proposition 36 represents a potential lessening of adjudicatory and penal controls rather than an increase in their severity, in this case in response to charges of drug use, possession, or transportation. Furthermore, Proposition 36 was written broadly enough to allow considerable discretion in implementation across the counties, including the specification of funding to support mandated provisions of the Act and division of oversight responsibilities among criminal justice and treatment stakeholders. Hence actual content and scope of criminal justice system procedural changes, and impact of the proposition on criminal justice and treatment systems and on arrestees, are likely to vary by county. The article identifies key approaches and decisions made in the sampled counties that are predicted to affect the proposition's impact in the areas of treatment versus criminal justice resources, prosecutorial implementation, defendant and defense responses, assessing criminal histories and treatment needs, treatment versus criminal justice supervisory responsibility, and procedural variations and client behavior.