Outcomes in a sample of opioid-dependent clients treated under California's proposition 36

Journal of Drug Issues

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 699-716

  Chun, JongSerl ^a   Guydish, Joseph R ^a   Sorensen, James L ^a   Haug, Nancy A ^a   Andrews, Siara ^b   Nelson, Larry ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation   (United States)

^c Walden House Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35248822678     PISSN: 00220426     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/002204260703700310     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Administrative Office of the Courts 1999 Drug treatment and education fund: Legislative report fiscal year 1997-1998. Arizona Supreme Court.
2. Andrews, S., Sorensen, J.L., Guydish, J., Delucchi, K., & Greenberg, B. 2005 Knowledge and attitudes about methadone maintenance among staffworking in a therapeutic community. Journal of Maintenance in Addiction, 31(1), 47-59.
3. California Campaign for New Drug Policies 2005 Prop 36: The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Retrieved December 4, 2005, from http://www.drugreform.org/prop36/fulltext.tpl
4. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 2000 Fact sheet: Facts and figures on alcohol and other drugs. CA: Office of Applied Research and Analysis.
5. Center for Substance Abuse Research 2001 Overview and outcomes of 2000 drug-related state ballot initiatives. FAX, 10(4).
6. Criminal Justice Statistics Center 2005 Crime in California 2004. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Justice.
7. Criminal Justice Statistics Center 2004 Crime in California 2003. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Justice.
8. De Leon, G., Melnick, G., Kressel, D., & Jainchill, N. 1994 Circumstances, motivation, readiness, and suitability (the CMRS scales): Predicting retention in therapeutic community treatment. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 20, 495-515.
9. Delucchi, K.L., & Bostrom, A. 2004 Methods for analysis of skewed data distributions in psychiatric clinical studies: Working with many zero values. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 1159-1168.
10. Drug Policy Alliance 2004 State by state: Reform in California. Retrieved December 9, 2005, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/statebystate/ california/
11. Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. 1993 An introduction to the bootstrap. New York, NY: Chapman & Hall.
12. Farabee, D., Hser, Y-I., Anglin, M. D., & Huang, D. 2004 Recidivism among an early cohort of California's Proposition 36 offenders. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 563-584.
13. Guydish, J., Werdegar, D., Sorensen, J. L., & Clark, W. 1998 Drug abuse day treatment: A randomized clinical trial comparing day and residential treatment programs. Journal of Counseling and Clinical Psychology, 66, 280-289.
14. Hser, Y-I., Teruya, C., Evans, E. A., Longshore, D., Grella, C., & Farabee, D. 2003 Treating drug-abusing offenders: Initial findings from a five-county study on the impact of California's Proposition 36 on the treatment system and patient outcomes. Evaluation Review, 27, 479-505.
15. Hubbard, R. L., Craddock, S. G., Flynn, P. M., Anderson, J., & Etheridge, R. M. 1997 Overview of 1-year follow-up outcomes in the Drug Abuse Treatment Outcome Study (DATOS). Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 11, 261-278.
16. Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. 1958 Non-parametric estimates from in complete observations. Journal of American Statistical Association, 53, 457-481.
17. Klein, D., Miller, R., Noble, A., & Speiglman, R. 2004 Incorporating a public health approach in drug law: Lessons from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California's Proposition 36. The Milbank Quarterly, 82, 723-757.
18. Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. 1986 Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 12-22.
19. Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W.W., & Wolfinger, R. D. 1996 SAS systems for mixed models. Cary, SC: SAS Institute.
20. Longshore, D. Evans, E. Urada, D., Teruya, C., Hardy, M., Hser, Y., Prendergast, M., & Ettner, S. 2003 Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2002 report. Implementation: July 1, 2001 to June 30, 2002. Prepared for California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, CA: Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles.
21. Longshore, D., Urada, D., Evans, E., Hser, Y. I., Prendergast, M., Hawken, A., Bunch, T., & Ettner, S. 2004 Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2003 report. Prepared for California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, CA: Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles.
22. Longshore, D., Urada, D., Evans, E., Hser, Y. I., Prendergast, M., & Hawken, A. 2005 Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2004 report. Prepared for California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, CA: Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, University of California, Los Angeles.
23. Macallair, D., Males, M., Rois, C., & Vargas, D. 2000 Drug use and justice: An examination of California drug policy enforcement. San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.
24. Males, M., Macallair, D., & Jamison, R. 2002 Drug use and justice 2002: An examination of California drug policy enforcement. San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice.
25. Marlowe, D. B., Elwork, A., Festinger, D. S., & McLellan, A. T. 2003 Drug policy by popular referendum: This, too shall pass. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 25, 213-221.
26. McGahan, P., Griffith, J., & McLellan, A. T. 1986 Composite scores for the Addiction Severity Index: Manual and computer software. Philadelphia, PA: Veterans Administration Press.
27. McLellan, A. T., Kushner, H., Metzger, D., Peters, F., Smith, I., Grissom, G., & Pettinati, H. 1992 The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9, 199-213.
28. Riley, K., Ebener, P., Chiesa, J., Turner, S., & Ringel, J. 2000 Drug offenders and the criminal justice system: Will Proposition 36 treat or create problems? Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
29. San Francisco Department of Public Health 2005 Community Substance Abuse Services Treatment Access Program (TAP) SF Substance Abuse Crime Prevention Act (Prop. 36). Retrieved February 5, 2007, from http://www.dph.sf.ca.us/php/tap/prop36.htm
30. San Francisco Department of Public Health 1999 A program for physician prescription of methadone in San Francisco. Retrieved March 30, 2007, from http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/ physician.pdf
31. Sees, K.L., Delucchi, K.L., Masson, C., Rosen, A., Clark, H.W., Robillard, H., Banys, P., & Hall, S. M. 2000 Methadone maintenance vs 180-day psychosocially enriched detoxification for treatment of opioid dependence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 1303-1310.
32. Simpson, D., Joe, G.W., & Broome, K.M. 2002 A national 5-year follow-up of treatment outcomes for cocaine dependence. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 507-514.
33. Speiglman, R., Klein, D., Miller, R., & Noble, A. 2003 Early implementation of Proposition 36: Criminal justice and treatment system issues in eight counties. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, SARC Supplement 1, 133-141.
34. Young, D., & Belenko, S. 2002 Program retention and perceived coercion in three models of mandatory drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 32(1), 297-328.