High-risk offenders participating in court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Characteristics, treatment received, and factors associated with recidivism

Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research

Volumn 38, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 510-525

  Evans, Elizabeth ^a   Huang, David ^a   Hser, Yih Ing ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; CRIME; DRUG DEPENDENCE TREATMENT; FEMALE; HUMAN; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; OFFENDER; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RECURRENT DISEASE; SELF REPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADULT; CRIME; CRIMINALS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAW ENFORCEMENT; MALE; RECURRENCE; SELF REPORT; SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTERS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 80052760794     PISSN: 10943412     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11414-011-9241-3     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000 (Prop. 36). 2008. Available at: http://www.adp.ca.gov/sacpa/prop36.shtml. Accessed October 8, 2009.
2. Hawken A. High-risk and high-cost offenders in Proposition 36. 2008. Available at: http://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/html/reports.html. Accessed October 9, 2009.
3. California Department of Finance. Governor's Budget 2008-2009. 2008. Available at: http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/Enacted/BudgetSummary/BSS/BSS.html. Accessed October 8, 2009.
4. Little Hoover Commission. Addressing addiction: Improving and integrating California's substance abuse treatment system. A report to the California Legislature. 2008. Available at: http://www.lhc.ca.gov/lhcdir/report190.html. Accessed October 8, 2009.
5. E Evans L Li YI Hser 2009 Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment Evaluation and Program Planning 32 204 212 19150133 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.12.003
6. YI Hser E Evans C Teruya, et al. 2007 Predictors of short-term treatment outcomes among California's Proposition 36 participants Evaluation and Program Planning 30 187 196 17689324 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.10.008 (Pubitemid 46414189)
7. FS Taxman M Thanner D Weisburd 2006 Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends Crime & Delinquency 52 28 51 10.1177/0011128705281754 (Pubitemid 43058883)
8. MH Thanner FS Taxman 2003 Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 24 137 147 12745031 10.1016/S0740-5472(02)00352-5 (Pubitemid 36547961)
9. FS Taxman J Bouffard 2002 Treatment inside the drug treatment court: The who, what, where, and how of treatment services Substance Use & Misuse 37 1665 1688 10.1081/JA-120014426 (Pubitemid 35423362)
10. DB Marlowe 2003 Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision Science and Practice Perspectives 2 4 14 18552716 10.1151/spp03214
11. DB Marlowe 2006 Judicial supervision of drug-abusing offenders American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 29 337 357
12. DB Marlowe DS Festinger KL Dugosh, et al. 2007 Adapting judicial supervision to the risk level of drug offenders: Discharge and 6-month outcomes from a prospective matching study Drug and Alcohol Dependence 88 4 13 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.10.001
13. DB Marlowe DS Festinger PA Lee, et al. 2006 Matching judicial supervision to clients' risk status in drug court Crime & Delinquency 52 52 76 10.1177/0011128705281746 (Pubitemid 43058884)
14. S Chen PG Barnett JM Sempel, et al. 2006 Outcomes and costs of matching the intensity of dual-diagnosis treatment to patients' symptom severity Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 31 95 105 16814015 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.03.015 (Pubitemid 43928420)
15. CC Thornton E Gottheil SP Weinstein, et al. 1998 Patient-treatment matching in substance abuse drug addiction severity Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 15 505 511 9845864 10.1016/S0740-5472(97)00306-1 1:STN:280: DyaK1M%2Fmt1aqtg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 28559448)
16. QQ Tiet MA Ilgen HF Byrnes, et al. 2007 Treatment setting and baseline substance use severity interact to predict patients' outcomes Addiction 102 432 440 17298651 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01717.x (Pubitemid 46239369)
17. C Timko JM Sempel 2004 Short-term outcomes of matching dual diagnosis patients' symptom severity to treatment intensity Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 26 209 218 15063915 10.1016/S0740-5472(04)00002-9 (Pubitemid 38452841)
18. TF Babor 2008 Treatment for persons with substance use disorders: Mediators, moderators, and the need for a new research approach International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 17 45 49 10.1002/mpr.248
19. MP Karno R Longabaugh 2007 Does matching matter? Examining matches and mismatches between patient attributes and therapy techniques in alcoholism treatment Addiction 102 587 596 17309536 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01754.x (Pubitemid 46398843)
20. CT Lowenkamp EJ Latessa 2005 Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement Criminology & Public Policy 4 263 290 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2005. 00021.x
21. D Farabee Y Hser D Anglin, et al. 2004 Recidivism among an early cohort of California's Proposition 36 offenders Criminology & Public Policy 3 563 584 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00063.x
22. Urada D, Evans E, Yang J, et al. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2009 Report. 2009. Submitted to the California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs.
23. YI Hser C Teruya AH Brown, et al. 2007 Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: Treatment capacity and displacement American Journal of Public Health 97 104 109 17138930 10.2105/AJPH.2005.069336 (Pubitemid 46067691)
24. Urada D, Hawken A, Conner B, et al. (2008). Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2008 Report. 2008. Available at: http://www.uclaisap.org/Prop36/html/reports.html. Accessed October 8, 2009.
25. CE Grella L Greenwell M Prendergast, et al. 2007 Organizational characteristics of drug abuse treatment programs for offenders Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 32 291 300 17383553 10.1016/j.jsat.2007.01.001 (Pubitemid 46463934)
26. YI Hser C Teruya E Evans, et al. 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 14531316 10.1177/0193841X03255774 (Pubitemid 39057322)
27. YI Hser E Evans 2008 Cross-system data linkage for treatment outcome evaluation: Lessons learned from the California Treatment Outcome Project Evaluation and Program Planning 31 125 135 18374980 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008. 02.003
28. Longshore D, Urada D, Evans E et al. Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: 2004 report. 2005. Available at: http://www.uclaisap. org/Prop36/html/reports.html. Accessed October 9, 2009.
29. AT McLellan L Luborsky GE Woody, et al. 1980 An improved diagnostic evaluation instrument for substance abuse patients: The Addiction Severity Index Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 168 26 33 7351540 10.1097/00005053- 198001000-00006 1:STN:280:DyaL3c%2Fps1Srsw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 10187569)
30. AT McLellan H Kushner D Metzger, et al. 1992 The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 9 199 213 1334156 10.1016/0740-5472(92)90062-S 1:STN:280:DyaK3s%2FpsFWluw%3D%3D
31. GB Bovasso AI Alterman JS Cacciola, et al. 2001 Predictive validity of the Addiction Severity Index's composite scores in the assessment of 2-year outcomes in a methadone maintenance population Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 15 171 176 11563793 10.1037/0893-164X.15.3.171 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3Mrhs1yqtg%3D%3D (Pubitemid 32844827)
32. TR Kosten BJ Rounsaville HD Kleber 1983 Concurrent validity of the Addiction Severity Index Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 171 606 610 6619823 10.1097/00005053-198310000-00003 1:STN:280:DyaL2c%2FgvFOnuw%3D%3D (Pubitemid 13017361)
33. AT McLellan JC Cacciola AI Alterman SH Rikoon D Carise 2006 The Addiction Severity Index at 25: Origins, contributions and transitions American Journal of Addictions 15 113 124 10.1080/10550490500528316
34. WR Miller JS Tonigan 1996 Assessing drinkers' motivation for change: The Stages of Change Readiness and Treatment Eagerness Scale (SOCRATES) Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 10 81 89 10.1037/0893-164X.10.2.81 (Pubitemid 26198455)
35. AT McLellan AI Alterman J Cacciola, et al. 1992 A new measure of substance abuse treatment: Initial studies of the treatment services review Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 180 101 110 1737971 10.1097/00005053- 199202000-00007 1:STN:280:DyaK387kvVeqsQ%3D%3D
36. D McCarty TG McGuire HJ Harwood T Field 1998 Using state information systems for drug abuse services research American Behavioral Scientist 41 1090 1106 10.1177/0002764298041008006
37. RC Saunders CA Heflinger 2004 Integrating data from multiple public sources: Opportunities and challenges for evaluators Evaluation: International Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice 10 349 365
38. E Evans C Grella D Murphy YI Hser 2010 Using administrative data for longitudinal substance abuse research Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research 37 252 271 10.1007/s11414-008-9125-3
39. E Evans MD Anglin D Urada J Yang 2011 Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36 Evaluation and Program Planning 34 124 134 20965568 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.09.001
40. Evans E, Li L, Urada D, Anglin M.D. Comparative effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and drug court programs before and after propensity score matching. Crime & Delinquency, 2011 (in press).
41. FS Taxman ML Perdoni LD Harrison 2007 Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 32 239 254 17383549 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.019 (Pubitemid 46442893)
42. KR Holloway TH Bennett DP Farrington 2006 The effectiveness of drug treatment programs in reducing criminal behavior: A meta-analysis Psicothema 18 620 629 17296096 (Pubitemid 44682159)
43. JF Kelly JW Finney R Moos 2005 Substance use disorder patients who are mandated to treatment: Characteristics, treatment process, and 1- and 5-year outcomes Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 28 213 223 15857721 10.1016/j.jsat.2004.10.014 (Pubitemid 40592122)
44. SL Ettner D Huang E Evans DR Ash M Hardy M Jourabchi YI Hser 2006 Benefit-cost in the California Treatment Outcome Project: Does substance abuse treatment "pay for itself?" Health Services Research 41 192 213 16430607 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00466.x
45. PD Friedmann FS Taxman CE Henderson 2007 Evidence-based treatment practices for drug-involved adults in the criminal justice system Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 32 267 277 17383551 10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.020 (Pubitemid 46441721)
46. Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Substance Abuse Treatment for Adults in the Criminal Justice System. Improvement Protocol (TIP) Series 44. DHHS Publication No. (SMA) 05-4056. Rockville, MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2005.
47. J McKellar J Kelly A Harris, et al. 2006 Pretreatment and during treatment risk factors for dropout among patients with substance use disorders Addictive Behaviors 31 450 460 15979244 10.1016/j.addbeh.2005.05.024 (Pubitemid 43288110)
48. AB Laudet 2008 The road to recovery: Where are we going and how do we get there? Empirically driven conclusions and future directions for service development and research Substance Use & Misuse 43 2001 2020 10.1080/10826080802293459
49. AB Laudet W White 2010 What are your priorities right now? Identifying service needs across recovery stages to inform service development Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 38 51 59 19631490 10.1016/j.jsat.2009.06.003
50. AT McLellan 2002 Have we evaluated addiction treatment correctly? Implications from a chronic care perspective Addiction 97 249 252 11964098 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2002.00127.x (Pubitemid 34250719)
51. HE Sung S Belenko L Feng, et al. 2004 Predicting treatment noncompliance among criminal justice-mandated clients: A theoretical and empirical exploration Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 26 315 328 14698795 10.1016/S0740-5472(03) 00144-2 (Pubitemid 38041226)
52. MJ Merkx GM Schippers MJ Koeter, et al. 2007 Allocation of substance use disorder patients to appropriate levels of care: Feasibility of matching guidelines in routine practice in Dutch treatment centres Addiction 102 466 474 17298655 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01716.x (Pubitemid 46239373)
53. M Hardy C Teruya D Longshore, et al. 2005 Initial implementation of California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Findings from focus groups in ten counties Evaluation and Program Planning 28 221 232 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.03.001 (Pubitemid 40393580)
54. RK Chandler RH Peters G Field, et al. 2004 Challenges in implementing evidence-based treatment practices for co-occurring disorders in the criminal justice system Behavioral Sciences & the Law 22 431 448 10.1002/bsl.598 (Pubitemid 39070981)
55. The Avisa Group. Comparing California's Proposition 36 (SACPA) with similar legislation in other states and jurisdictions. 2005. Available at: http://www.prop36.org/pdf/ComparisonProp36OtherStates.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2009.
56. California Secretary of State. Voter information guide. 2008. Available at: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop5-title-sum.htm. Accessed October 8, 2009.