Crime trends and the effect of mandated drug treatment: Evidence from California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 109-113

  Worrall, John L ^a   Hiromoto, Scott ^b   Merritt, Nancy ^c   Du, Dan ^b   Jacobson, Jerry O ^d   Iguchi, Martin Y ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^c NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE   (United States)

^d CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 62549136498     PISSN: 00472352     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.02.010     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Anglin M.D., and Turner S. Treatment alternatives to street crime: An evaluation of five programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior 26 (1999) 168-195
2. Appel J., Backes G., and Robbins J. California's Proposition 36: A success ripe for refinement and replication: Reaction essay. Criminology and Public Policy 3 (2004) 585-592
3. Auerhahn K. California's incarcerated drug offender population, yesterday, today, and tomorrow: Evaluating the war on drugs and Proposition 36. Journal of Drug Issues 34 (2004) 95-120
4. Becker G.S. Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy 76 (1968) 169-217
5. Belenko S. Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review I (1998) 1-44
6. Belenko S. Drug courts. In: Leukefeld C.G., Tims F., and Farabee D. (Eds). Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues. (2002), Springer, New York
7. Benson B.L., Kim I., Rasmussen D.W., and Zuehlke T.W. Is property crime caused by drug use or drug enforcement policy?. Applied Economics 24 (1992) 679-692
8. Brandt P.T., and Williams J.T. A linear Poisson autoregressive model: The Poisson AR(p) Model. Political Analysis 9 (2001) 164-184
9. Brandt P.T., Williams J.T., Fordham B.O., and Pollins B. Dynamic modeling for persistent event count time series. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2000) 823-843
10. Farabee D., Hser Y., Anglin M.D., and Huang D. Recidivism among an early cohort of California's Proposition 36 offenders. Criminology and Public Policy 3 (2004) 563-584
11. Goldstein P.J., Brownstein H.H., Ryan P.J., and Bellucci P.A. Crack and homicide in New York City, 1988: A conceptually based event analysis. Contemporary Drug Problems (1989, Winter) 651-687
12. Harvey A.C. Forecasting, structural time series models and the Kalman filter (1989), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA
13. Iguchi M.Y., London J.A., Forge N.G., Hickman L., Fain T., and Riehman K. Elements of well-being affected by criminalizing the drug user. Public Health Reports 117 Suppl. 1 (2002) S146-S150
14. Kleiman M.A.R. Managing drug-involved offenders. Drug Policy Analysis Bulletin 1 (1997, January)
15. Legislative Analyst's Office. Analysis of the 2001-2002 budget bill: Implementation of Proposition 36 (2001), Author, Sacramento, CA
16. Lott J.R., and Whitley J. Measurement error in county-level UCR data. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19 (2003) 185-198
17. McDowall D., Lofton C., and Wiersema B. Easing concealed firearm laws: Effects on homicide in three states. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 84 (1995) 193-206
18. Orange County Grand Jury. A shortfall in Proposition 36 support? Final report (2003), Author, Santa Ana, CA
19. Tennenbaum A.N. The influence of the Garner decision on police use of deadly force. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 85 (1994) 241-260
20. Wellisch J., Prendergast M., and Anglin M.D. Criminal justice and drug treatment systems linkage: Federal promotion of interagency collaboration in the 1970s. Contemporary Drug Problems 20 (1993) 611-650
21. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Proposition 36).