Comparative Effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score Matching

Crime and Delinquency

Volumn 60, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 909-938

  Evans, Elizabeth ^a   Li, Libo ^a   Urada, Darren ^a   Anglin, M Douglas ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

drug court; drug treatment outcomes; propensity scoring; Proposition 36; recidivism

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905671752     PISSN: 00111287     EISSN: 1552387X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0011128710382342     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. American University. (2009). Drug Court Clearinghouse/Adult Technical Assistance Project. Washington, DC: American University Justice Programs Office at the School of Public Affairs. Retrieved from http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/project.php?ID=1.
2. Appel J.,Backes G.,Robbins J.California's Proposition 36: A success ripe for refinement and replication.Criminology & Public Policy. 2004;3:585-592.
3. The Avisa Group. (2005). Comparing California's Proposition 36 (SACPA) with similar legislation in other states and jurisdictions. Retrieved from http://www.prop36.org/pdf/ComparisonProp36OtherStates.pdf.
4. Bean P.Drug treatment courts, British style: The drug treatment court movement in Britain.Substance Use & Misuse. 2002;37:1595-1614.
5. Belenko S.Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues. Leukefeld C. G.Tims F.Farabee D., ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2002:301-318.
6. Belenko S.,DeMatteo D.,Patapis N.Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders: Assessment, treatment, and research. Springer D. W.Roberts A. R., ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2007:385-423.
7. Burns S. L.,Peyrot M.Tough love: Nurturing and coercing responsibility and recovery in California drug courts.Social Problems. 2003;50:416-438.
8. Burns S. L.,Peyrot M.Reclaiming discretion: Judicial sanctioning strategy in court-supervised drug treatment.Journal of Contemporary Ethnography. 2008;37:720-744.
9. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. (2001). Substance abuse treatment and testing accountability program: Senate Bill 223 (Burton): All County Lead Agencies Letter (01-15). Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.adp.state.ca.us/SACPA/PDF/ACLA_Letter_01-15.pdf.
10. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. (2005). Comprehensive Drug Court Implementation Act of 1999: Final report to the legislature. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.adp.ca.gov/DrugCourts/pdf/CDCI_FinalReportToLegislature_March2005.pdf.
11. CalOMS treatment data dictionary. Sacramento, CA: Author; 2007:.
12. California Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. (2010). Drug courts overview. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.adp.state.ca.us/DrugCourts/overview.shtml.
13. Division of Addiction and Recovery Services annual report. Sacramento, CA: Author; 2009:.
14. California Department of Finance. (2009). Governor's budget 2009-10. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/.
15. CareyS. M.PukstasK.WallerM. S.MackinR. J.FiniganM. W. (2008). Drug courts and state-mandated drug treatment programs: Outcomes, costs and consequences: Final report: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.npcresearch.com/Files/Prop36_Drug_Court_Executive_Summary_0308.pdf.
16. 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 & Delinquency. 2006;52:599-618.
17. D'Agostino R. H.Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a nonrandomized control group.Statistics in Medicine. 1998;17:2265-2281.
18. DeLisi M.The imprisoned nonviolent drug offender: Specialized martyr or versatile career criminal?.American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2003;27:167-182.
19. DeLisi M.,Barnes J. C.,Beaver K. M.,Gibson C. L.Delinquent gangs and adolescent victimization revisited: A propensity score matching approach.Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2009;36:808-823.
20. Duran F.,Wilson S.,Carroll D.Putting administrative data to work: A toolkit for state agencies on advancing data integration and data sharing efforts to support sound policy and program development. Farmington: Child Health and Development Institute of Connecticut; 2005:.
21. DuroseM. R.MumolaC. (2002). Profile of nonviolent offenders exiting state prisons. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1120.
22. Ehlers S.,Ziedenberg J.Proposition 36: Five years later. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute; 2006:.
23. Evans E.,Anglin M. D.,Urada D.,Yang J.Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36. 2010;:.
24. Evans E.,Grella C.,Murphy D.,Hser Y. I.Using administrative data for longitudinal substance abuse research.Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2010;37:252-271.
25. Evans E.,Hser Y. I.,Huang D.Employment services utilization and outcomes among substance-abusing offenders participating in California's Proposition 36 drug treatment initiative.Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research. 2009;:.
26. 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.
27. Evans E.,Li L.,Hser Y. I.Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment.Evaluation & Program Planning. 2009;32:204-212.
28. Farabee D.,Hser Y. H.,Anglin M. D.,Huang D.Recidivism among an early cohort of California's Proposition 36 offenders.Criminology & Public Policy. 2004;3:563-584.
29. Farabee D.,Prendergast M.,Anglin M. D.The effectiveness of coerced treatment for drug-abusing offenders.Federal Probation. 1998;62:3-10.
30. 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.
31. Freeman K.Health and well-being outcomes for drug-dependent offenders on the NSW drug court programme.Drug & Alcohol Review. 2003;22:409-416.
32. French M. T.,Fang H.,Fretz R.Economic evaluation of a prerelease substance abuse treatment program for repeat criminal offenders.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2010;38:31-44.
33. 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 of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2006;50:280-293.
34. Garrity T. F.,Prewitt S. H.,Joosen M.,Tindall M. S.,Webster J. M.,Leukefeld C. G.Baseline subjective stress predicts 1-year outcomes among drug court clients.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2008;52:346-357.
35. 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.
36. Grella C. E.,Greenwell L.,Prendergast M.,Farabee D.,Hall E.,Cartier J.,Burdon W.Organizational characteristics of drug abuse treatment programs for offenders.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2007;32:291-300.
37. 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 & Program Planning. 2005;28:221-232.
38. 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.
39. Hser Y. I.,Evans E.Cross-system data linkage for treatment outcome evaluation: Lessons learned from the California Treatment Outcome Project.Evaluation & Program Planning. 2008;31:125-135.
40. Hser Y. I.,Evans E.,Huang D.,Brecht M. L.,Li L.Comparing the dynamic course of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine use over 10 years.Addictive Behaviors. 2008;33:1581-1590.
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 & 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. 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.
44. Judicial Council of California. (2006). Research summary: California drug court cost analysis study. Retrieved from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/collab/documents/drugcourt-cost.pdf.
45. Judicial Council of California. (2010). California courts: The judicial branch of California. Retrieved from http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/index.htm.
46. Kalich D. M.,Evans R. D.Drug court: An effective alternative to incarceration.Deviant Behavior. 2006;27:569-590.
47. 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.Milbank Quarterly. 2004;82:723-757.
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 & 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. Retrieved from http://www.lhc.ca.gov/.
50. Longshore D.,Evans E.,Urada D.,Teruya C.,Hardy M.,Hser Y. I., Ettner S.Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2002 report. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2003:.
51. 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). Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2006:.
52. Longshore D.,Urada D.,Evans E.,Hser Y. I.,Prendergast M.,Hawken A.Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act 2004 report. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2005:.
53. Makkai T.The emergence of drug treatment courts in Australia.Substance Use & Misuse. 2002;37:1567-1594.
54. Marlowe D. B.Integrating substance abuse treatment and criminal justice supervision.Science & Practice Perspectives. 2003;2:4-14.
55. Marlowe D. B.,Elwork A.,Festinger D. S.,McLellan A. T.Drug policy by popular referendum: This, too, shall pass.Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 2003;25:213-221.
56. McCarty D.,McGuire T. G.,Harwood H. J.,Field T.Using state information systems for drug abuse services research.American Behavioral Scientist. 1998;41:1090-1106.
57. McIvor G.Therapeutic jurisprudence and procedural justice in Scottish drug courts.Criminology & Criminal Justice: An International Journal. 2009;9:29-49.
58. Merrall E. L.,Bird S. M.A statistical perspective on the design of drug-court studies.Evaluation Review. 2009;33:257-280.
59. Niv N.,Hamilton A.,Hser Y. I.Impact of court-mandated substance abuse treatment on clinical decision making.Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research. 2009;36:505-516.
60. Pew Center on the States. (2009). Beyond California: States in fiscal peril. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/State_policy/BeyondCalifornia.pdf?n=7285.
61. 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?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2000:.
62. Roll J. M.,Prendergast M.,Richardson K.,Burdon W.,Ramirez A.Identifying predictors of treatment outcome in a drug court program.American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse. 2005;31:641-656.
63. Rosenbaum P. R.,Rubin D. R.The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects.Biometrika. 1983;70:41-55.
64. Rosenbaum P. R.,Rubin D. R.Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score.American Statistician. 1985;39:33-38.
65. Saunders R. C.,Heflinger C. A.Integrating data from multiple public sources: Opportunities and challenges for evaluators.Evaluation: The International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 2004;10:349-365.
66. Shanahan M.,Lancsar E.,Haas M.,Lind B.,Weatherburn D.,Chen S.Cost-effectiveness analysis of the New South Wales adult drug court program.Evaluation Review. 2004;28:3-27.
67. Slade E. P.,Stuart E. A.,Salkever D. S.,Karakua M.,Green K. M.,Ialongo N.Impacts of age of onset of substance use disorders on risk of adult incarceration among disadvantaged urban youth: A propensity score matching approach.Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 2008;95:1-13.
68. Speiglman R.,Klein D.,Miller R.,Noble A.Early implementation of Proposition 36: Criminal justice and treatment system issues in eight counties.Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 35. 2003;:133-141.
69. Sullivan C. J.,McGloin J. M.,Pratt T. C.,Piquero A. R.Rethinking the "norm" of offender generality: Investigating specialization in the short-term.Criminology. 2006;44:199-233.
70. Taxman F. S.,Thanner M.,Weisburd D.Risk, need, and responsivity (RNR): It all depends.Crime & Delinquency. 2006;52:28-51.
71. Tucker J. A.,Roth D. L.Extending the evidence hierarchy to enhance evidence-based practice for substance use disorders.Addiction. 2006;101:918-932.
72. Turner S.,Longshore D.,Wenzel S.,Deschenes E.,Greenwood P.,Fain T., McBride D.A decade of drug treatment court research.Substance Use & Misuse. 2002;37:1489-1521.
73. Urada D.,Evans E.,Yang J.,Conner B. T.,Campos M.,Brecht M. L.,McBride D.Evaluation of Proposition 36: The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act of 2000: 2009 report. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2009:.
74. Urada D.,Longshore D.,Conner B. T.Evaluation of the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Final report. Los Angeles: UCLA Integrated Substance Abuse Programs; 2007:33-56.
75. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, and The National Association of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards Committee. (1997). Defining drug courts: The key components. Washington DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/DrugCourts/DefiningDC.pdf.
76. Werb D.,Elliott R.,Fischer B.,Wood E.,Montaner J.,Kerr T.Drug treatment courts in Canada: An evidence-based review.HIV/AIDS Policy & Law Review. 2007;12:12-17.
77. 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.
78. 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.
79. Wiseman C. M.Drug courts: Framing policy to ensure success.International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. 2005;49:235-238.
80. Ye Y.,Kaskutas L. A.Using propensity scores to adjust for selection bias when assessing the effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous in observational studies.Drug & Alcohol Dependence. 2009;104:56-64.