As California prisons continue to struggle to find reform for nonviolent drug offenders, the state's recidivism rates continue to reach record highs. unprecedented figures. Between 1983 and 1998, drug admissions to state and federal prisons increased sixteenfold, from more than 10,000 drug admissions in 1983 to nearly 167,000 new prison entries for drug offenses in 1998 (Worrall et al, 2009). This is a direct result of our legal system incarcerating offenders who have substance abuse issues instead of providing a means of treatment or rehabilitation outside of incarceration. Through public policy regarding criminal justice interventions to combat drug use and crime, an initiative was created to provide treatment services to divert attention toward incarceration. The treatment diversion law that was created in California is called Proposition 36, also known as the “Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000.” This literature review will briefly describe various themes related to addiction treatment and Proposition 36. These themes are: a description of Proposition-36, what population the services were intended for, the goals of the initiative, what are some of the overall success rates. and how this offender diversion program has impacted California's economy. At the same time that legislatures were increasing penalties for drug possession offenses and funding more and more prisons, millions of Americans lacked access to drug and alcohol treatment, psychiatric care, housing and other services. crucial services (Appel et al. 2004). In November 2000, Proposition 36 passed by a California majority by a margin of 61%, with $120 million available to fund treatment services on a f...... middle of paper .... .., Urada, D., and Yang, J. (2011). Promising practices for delivering court-supervised drug treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties implementing Proposition 36. Program Evaluation and Planning, 34(2), 124-134. doi:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.09.001Klein, D., Miller, R.E., Noble, A., & Speiglman, R. (2004). Incorporating a public health approach into drug legislation: Lessons learned from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California's Proposition 36. The Milbank Quarterly, 82(4), 723-757. doi:10.1111/j.0887-378X.2004.00329.xWorrall, J.L., Hiromoto, S., Merritt, N., Du, D., Jacobson, J.O., & Iguchi, M.Y. (2009). Crime trends and the effect of mandatory drug treatment: Evidence from California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(2), 109-113. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.02.010