Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36

Evaluation and Program Planning

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 124-134

  Evans, Elizabeth ^a   Anglin, M Douglas ^a   Urada, Darren ^a   Yang, Joy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Court supervised substance abuse treatment; Focus groups; Offenders; Promising practices; Proposition 36

Indexed keywords

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; STAKEHOLDER; STRATEGIC APPROACH;

ADDICTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMMUNITY CARE; CRIMINAL LAW; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; POLICY; SOCIOECONOMICS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; CALIFORNIA; COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES; CRIMINAL LAW; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; POLICY; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

CALIFORNIA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79951770933     PISSN: 01497189     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.09.001     Document Type: Article

References (81)

1. Anglin M.D., Urada D., Brecht M.L., Hawken A., Rawson R., Longshore D. Criminal justice treatment admissions for methamphetamine use in California: A focus on Proposition. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 2007, 36(November (Suppl. 4)):367-381.
2. Belenko S. Drug courts. Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues 2002, 301-318. Springer, New York, NY. C.G. Leukefeld, F. Tims, D. Farabee (Eds.).
3. Belenko S., DeMatteo D., Patapis N. Drug courts. Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders: Assessment, treatment, and research 2007, 385-423. Springer, New York. D.W. Springer, A.R. Roberts (Eds.).
4. Belenko S., Logan T.K. Delivering more effective treatment to adolescents: Improving the juvenile drug court model. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2003, 25:189-211.
5. Boles S.M., Young N.K., Moore T., Di-Pirro Beard S. The Sacramento dependency drug court: Development and outcomes. Child Maltreatment 2007, 12:161-171.
6. Brecht M.L., Stein J., Evans E., Murphy D., Longshore D. Predictors of intention to change HIV sexual and injection risk behaviors among heterosexual methamphetamine-using offenders in drug treatment: A test of the AIDS risk reduction model. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research 2009, 36:247-266.
7. Broner N., Lattimore P., Cowell A., Schlenger W. Effects of diversion on adults with co-occurring mental illness and substance use: Outcomes from a national multi-site study. Behavior Science and the Law 2004, 22:519-541.
8. Bryan V., Hiller M., Leukefeld C. A qualitative examination of the juvenile drug court treatment. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions 2006, 6:91-114.
9. Burns S.L., Peyrot M. Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California drug courts. Social Problems 2003, 50:416-438.
10. Burns S.L., Peyrot M. Reclaiming discretion: Judicial sanctioning strategy in court-supervised drug treatment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2008, 37:720-744.
11. California Courts. (2009). Collaborative justice courts. Available at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/.
12. California Department of Finance (2009). Governor's budget 2008-09. Available at: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/.
13. Carey, S. M., Pukstas, K., Waller, M. S., Mackin, R. J., & Finigan, M. W. (2008). Drug courts and state-mandated drug treatment programs: Outcomes, costs and consequences: Final report. Submitted to the National Institute of Justice Office of Research and Evaluation. Portland, OR: NPC Research. Available at: http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Prop36_Drug_Court_Executive_Summary_0308.pdf.
14. Carlsson L. Policy networks as collective action. Policy Studies 2000, 28:502-522.
15. Collaborative Justice. (2009). Collaborative justice. Available at: http://www.collaborativejustice.org/home.htm.
16. Colyer C.J. Innovation and discretion: The drug court as a people-processing institution. Criminal Justice Policy Review 2007, 18:313-329.
17. Corbin J., Strauss A.C. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory 2008, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
18. Cosden M., Basch J.E., Campos E., Greenwell A., Barazani S., Walker S. Effects of motivation and problem severity on court-based drug treatment. Crime and Delinquency 2006, 52:599-618.
19. Ehlers S., Ziedenberg J. Proposition 36: Five years later 2006, Justice Policy Institute, Washington, DC.
20. Erickson S.K., Campbell A., Lamberti J.S. Variations in mental health courts: Challenges, opportunities, and a call for caution. Community Mental Health Journal 2006, 42:335-344.
21. Evans E., Li L., Hser Y.-I. Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2008, 35:410-418.
22. Evans E., Hser Y.-I., Huang D. Employment services utilization and outcomes among offenders receiving substance abuse treatment under California's Proposition 36. Journal of Behavior Health Services and Research 2009.
23. Evans, E., Li, L., Urada, D., & Anglin, M.D. (in press). Comparative effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and drug court programs before and after propensity score matching. Crime and Delinquency.
24. Farabee D., Hser Y.-I., Anglin M.D., Huang D. Recidivism among an early cohort of California's Proposition 36 offenders. Criminology & Public Policy 2004, 3:563-584.
25. Ford, W. F., Brookes, B. L., & Hauser, S. (2005). Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: Analysis of FY 2004/05 plans from the 58 counties. Available at: http://www.adp.ca.gov/SACPA/P36_Reports.shtml.
26. Fosados R., Evans E., Hser Y.-I. Ethnic differences in services utilization and outcomes among Proposition 36 offenders in California. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2007, 33:391-399.
27. Galloway A.L., Drapela L.A. Are effective drug courts an urban phenomenon?: Considering their impact on recidivism among a nonmetropolitan adult sample in Washington state. International Journal Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 2006, 50:280-293.
28. Gelber, S., & Rinaldo, D. (2005). Proposition 36 today: A study of California stakeholders in ten counties. Available at: http://www.avisagroup.com/theavisagroup.html.
29. Gilmore A.S., Rodriguez N., Webb V.J. Substance abuse and drug courts: The role of social bonds in juvenile drug courts. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 2005, 3:287-315.
30. Glaser B.G., Strauss A.L. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. 1967, Aldine Publishing, Chicago.
31. Gondolf E. Implementing mental health treatment for batterer program participants: Interagency breakdowns and underlying issues. Violence Against Women 2009, 15:638-655.
32. Gottfredson D.C., Najaka S.S., Kearley B.W., Rocha C.M. Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore city drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2006, 2:67-98.
33. Grudzinskas A.J., Clayfield J., Roy-Bujnowski K., Fisher W., Richardson M. Integrating the criminal justice system into mental health service delivery: The Worcester diversion experience. Behavior Science and the Law 2005, 23:277-293.
34. Hardy M., Teruya C., Longshore D., Hser Y.-I. Initial implementation of California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Findings from focus groups in ten counties. Evaluation and Program Planning 2005, 28:221-232.
35. Hawken A. High-risk and high-cost offenders in Proposition 36. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2008 Report. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 2008, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Los Angeles, CA. D. Urada, A. Hawken, B. Conner (Eds.).
36. Henderson C.E., Young D.W., Farrell J., Taxman F.S. Associations among state and local organizational contexts: Use of evidence-based practices in the criminal justice system. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2009, 103:S23-32.
37. Henggeler S.W., Halliday-Boykins C.A., Cunningham P.B., Randall J., Shapiro S.B., Chapman J.E. Juvenile drug court: Enhancing outcomes by integrating evidence-based treatments. Journal Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2006, 74:42-54.
38. Hojnacki M. Interest groups' decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science 1997, 41:61-87.
39. Hora P.F. A dozen years of drug treatment courts: Uncovering our theoretical foundation and the construction of a mainstream paradigm. Substance Use & Misuse 2002, 37:1469-1488.
40. Hser Y.-I., Teruya C., Evans E., Longshore D., Grella C., Farabee D. 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 2003, 27:479-505.
41. Hser Y.-I., Evans E., Teruya C., Huang D., Anglin M.D. Predictors of short-term treatment outcomes among California's Proposition 36 participants. Evaluation and Program Planning 2007, 30:187-196.
42. Hser Y.-I., Teruya C., Brown A.H., Huang D., Evans E., Anglin M.D. Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: Treatment capacity and displacement. American Journal of Public Health 2007, 97:104-109.
43. Judicial Council of California. (2006). Research summary: California drug court cost analysis study. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/index.htm.
44. Judicial Council of California. (2010). California courts: The judicial branch of California. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/index.htm.
45. Kenis P., Schneider V. Policy networks. Empirical Evidence and theoretical considerations 1991, Chapter 2: Policy networks and policy analysis: Scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox, Campus/Westview, Boulder, CO. B. Marin, R. Mayntz (Eds.).
46. Klein D., Miller R.E., Noble A., Speiglman R. 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 2004, 82:723-757.
47. Konig T., Brauninger T. The formation of policy networks: Preferences, institutions and actors' choice of information and exchange relations. Journal of Theoretical Politics 1998, 10:445-471.
48. Krebs C.P, Lindquist C.H., Koetse W., Lattimore P.K. Assessing the long-term impact of drug court participation on recidivism with generalized estimating equations. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 2007, 91:57-68.
49. Little Hoover Commission. (2008). Addressing addiction: Improving and integrating California's substance abuse treatment system: A report to the California Legislature. Available at: http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/report190.html.
50. Logan T., Williams K., Leukefeld C., Minton L. A process evaluation of a drug court: Methodology and results. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 2000, 44:369-394.
51. Longshore D., Evans E., Urada D., Teruya C., Hardy M., Hser Y.-I., et al. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2002 Report. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 2003, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Los Angeles, CA.
52. Longshore D., Hawken A., Urada D., Anglin M.D. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: SACPA cost-analysis report (first and second years). Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 2006, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Los Angeles, CA.
53. Longshore D., Turner S., Wenzel S., Morral A., Harrell A., McBride D., et al. Drug courts: A conceptual framework. Journal of Drug Issues 2001, 31:7-26.
54. Longshore D., Urada D., Evans E., Hser Y.-I., Prendergast M., Hawken A. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2004 Report. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 2005, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Los Angeles, CA.
55. Marinelli-Casey P., Gonzales R., Hillhouse M., Ang A., Zweben J., Cohen J., et al. Drug court treatment for methamphetamine dependence: Treatment response and post-treatment outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 2008, 34:242-248.
56. Maynard-Moody S., Musheno M., Palumbo D. Street-wise social policy: Resolving the dilemma of street-level influence and successful implementation. The Western Political Quarterly 1990, 43:833-848.
57. McGregor S.L.T. Modeling the evolution of a policy network using network analysis. Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal 2004, 32:382-407.
58. McLellan A.T. Have we evaluated addiction treatment correctly? Implications from a chronic care perspective. Addiction 2002, 97(3):249-252.
59. Merrall E.L., Bird S.M. A statistical perspective on the design of drug-court studies. Evaluation Review 2009, 33:257-280.
60. National Association of Drug Court Professionals. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/DrugCourts/DefiningDC.pdf.
61. Niv N., Hamilton A., Hser Y.-I. Impact of court-mandated substance abuse treatment on clinical decision making. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research 2009, 36:505-516.
62. Nored L.S., Carlan P.E. Success of drug court programs: Examination of the perceptions of drug court personnel. Criminal Justice Review 2008, 33:329-342.
63. Percival G.L. The influence of local contextual characteristics on the implementation of a statewide voter initiative: The case of California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (Proposition 36). The Policy Studies Journal 2004, 32:589-610.
64. Peters R.H., Murrin M.R. Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior 2000, 27:72-96.
65. Prendergast M., Greenwell L., Farabee D., Hser Y.-I. Influence of perceived coercion and motivation on treatment completion and re-arrest among substance-abusing offenders. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research 2009, 36:159-176.
66. Redlich A., Steadman H., Monahan J., Robbins P., Petrila J. Patterns of practice in mental health courts: A national survey. Law and Human Behavior 2006, 30:347-362.
67. Resnick S.G., Rosenheck R.A. Scaling up the dissemination of evidence-based mental health practice to large systems and long-term time frames. Psychiatric Services 2009, 60:682-685.
68. Riley K.J., Ebener P.A., Chiesa J., Turner S., Ringel J. Drug offenders and the criminal justice system: Will Proposition 36 treat or create problems? 2000, RAND, Santa Monica, CA.
69. Rodriguez N., Webb V.J. Multiple measures of juvenile drug court effectiveness: Results of a quasi-experimental design. Crime and Delinquency 2004, 50:292-314.
70. Rycroft-Malone J., Harvey G., Seers K., Kitson A., McCormack B., Titchen A. An exploration of the factors that influence the implementation of evidence into practice. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2004, 13:913-924.
71. Schneider V. The structure of policy networks. European Journal of Political Research 1992, 21:102-129.
72. Sloan J.J., Smykla J.O., Rush J.P. Do juvenile drug courts reduce recidivism?: Outcomes of drug court and an adolescent substance abuse program. American Journal of Criminal Justice 2004, 29:95-115.
73. The Avisa Group. (2005). Comparing California's Proposition 36 (SACPA) with similar legislation in other states and jurisdictions. Available at: http://www.prop36.org/pdf/ComparisonProp36OtherStates.pdf.
74. Torrey W.C., Finnerty M., Evans A., Wyzik P. Strategies for leading the implementation of evidence-based practices. Psychiatric Clinics of North America 2003, 26:883-897.
75. Turner S., Longshore D., Wenzel S., Deschenes E., Greenwood P., Fain T., et al. A decade of drug treatment court research. Substance Use and Misuse Special Issue on Drug Treatment Courts 2002, 37:1489-1521.
76. Urada D., Evans E., Yang J., Conner B.T., Campos M., Brecht M.L., et al. Evaluation of Proposition 36: The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: 2009 Report. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs 2009, UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Los Angeles, CA.
77. Wenzel S., Turner S., Ridgely S. Collaborations between drug courts and service providers: Characteristics and challenges. Journal of Criminal Justice 2004, 32:253-263.
78. Wiley D., Beattie M., Nguyen H., Puckett K., Banerjee K., Poon W. When you assume: The reality of implementing a legally mandated substance abuse treatment program. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 2004, 2:175-180.
79. Wilson D.B., Mitchell O., Mackenzie D.L. A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology 2006, 2:459-487.
80. Wiseman C.M. Drug courts: Framing policy to ensure success. International Journal of Offender Therapy Comparative Criminology 2005, 49:235-238.
81. Wolfe E.L., Guydish J., Woods W., Tajima B. Perspectives on the drug court model across systems: A process evaluation. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs 2004, 36:379-386.