The effects of participation level on recidivism: A study of drug treatment courts using propensity score matching

Substance Abuse: Treatment, Prevention, and Policy

Volumn 9, Issue 1, 2014, Pages

  Gifford, Elizabeth J ^a   Eldred, Lindsey M ^a   McCutchan, Sabrina A ^a   Sloan, Frank A ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CRIME; CRIMINOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PROPENSITY SCORE; RECURRENT DISEASE; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; UNITED STATES;

ADULT; CRIME; CRIMINOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NORTH CAROLINA; PROPENSITY SCORE; RECURRENCE; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 84907396930     PISSN: None     EISSN: 1747597X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1747-597x-9-40     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Mumola CJ, Karberg JC. Drug use and dependence, state and federal prisoners, 2004 2006, 1-12. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
2. How many drug courts are there? Drug courts today. [http://www.ndcrc.org/node/348].
3. Butzin CA, Saum CA, Scarpitti FR. Factors associated with completion of a drug treatment court diversion program. Subst Use Misuse 2002, 37:1615-1633. 10.1081/JA-120014424, 12487236.
4. Evans E, Li L, Hser Y-I. Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment. Eval Program Plann 2009, 32:204-212. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.12.003, 2703685, 19150133.
5. Shaffer DK. Looking inside the black box of drug courts: a meta-analytic review. Justice Q 2011, 28:493-521.
6. Rempel M, Green M, Kralstein D. The impact of adult drug courts on crime and incarceration: findings from a multi-site quasi-experimental design. Criminology 2012, 8:165-192.
7. Wilson DB, Mitchell O, MacKenzie DL. A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism. J Exp Criminol 2006, 2:459-487.
8. Gossop M, Trakada K, Stewart D, Witton J. Reductions in criminal convictions after addiction treatment: 5-Year follow-up. Drug Alcohol Depen 2005, 79:295-302.
9. Gottfredson DC, Kearley BW, Najaka SS, Rocha CM. How drug treatment courts work: an analysis of mediators. J Res Crime Delinq 2007, 44:3-35.
10. Mitchell O, Wilson DB, Eggers A, MacKenzie DL. Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: a meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts. J Crim Justice 2012, 40:60-71.
11. Peters RH, Murrin MR. Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Crim Just Behav 2000, 27:72-96.
12. Spohn C, Piper RK, Martin T, Frenzel ED. Drug courts and recidivism: the results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. J Drug Issues 2001, 31:149-176.
13. Bowers JE. Contraindicated drug courts. UCLA Law Rev 2008, 55:784-835.
14. DeMatteo D, Marlowe DB, Festinger DS, Arabia PL. Outcome trajectories in drug court: Do all participants have serious drug problems?. Crim Just Behav 2009, 36:354-368.
15. Miller EJ. Embracing addiction: drug courts and the false promise of judicial interventionism. Ohio State Law J 2004, 65:1479-1576.
16. Anderson JF. What to do about “ much ado“ about drug courts?. Int J Drug Policy 2001, 12:469-475.
17. Fischer B. 'Doing good with a vengeance': a critical assessment of the practices, effects and implications of drug treatment courts in North America. Criminol Crim Just 2003, 3:227-248.
18. MacDonald JM, Morral AR, Raymond B, Eibner C. The efficacy of the Rio Hondo DUI court: a 2-year field experiment. Eval Rev 2007, 31:4-23. 10.1177/0193841X06287189, 17259573.
19. Evans E, Li L, Urada D, Anglin MD. Comparative effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and drug court programs before and after propensity score matching. Crime Delinq 2010, 60:909-938.
20. Rengifo AF, Stemen D. The impact of drug treatment on recidivism: do mandatory programs make a difference? Evidence from Kansas' Senate Bill 123. Crime Delinq 2013, 59:930-950.
21. Somers JM, Currie L, Moniruzzaman A, Eiboff F, Patterson M. Drug treatment court of Vancouver: an empirical evaluation of recidivism. Int J Drug Policy 2012, 23:393-400. 10.1016/j.drugpo.2012.01.011, 22421552.
22. Sloan FA, Chepke LM, Davis DV, Acquah K, Zold-Kilbourn P. Effects of admission and treatment strategies of DWI courts on offender outcomes. Accident Anal Prev 2013, 53:112-120.
23. Goldkamp JS, White MD, Robinson JB. Do drug courts work? Getting inside the drug court black box. J Drug Issues 2001, 31:27-72.
24. Wolfe E, Guydish J, Termondt J. A drug court outcome evaluation comparing arrests in a two year follow-up period. J Drug Issues 2002, 32:1155-1172. 10.1177/002204260203200410, 3082148, 21528100.
25. Parker S, Smith JW. 2010 Annual Report on North Carolina's Drug Treatment Courts (N.C.G.S. §7A-801). Book 2010 Annual Report on North Carolina's Drug Treatment Courts (N.C.G.S. §7A-801) 2010, North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.
26. North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts North Carolina Courts annual report: July 2, 2010-June 30, 2011 2011, 20. Raleigh, NC, North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.
27. Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 1983, 70:41-55.
28. Rubin DB. For objective causal inference, design trumps analysis. Ann Appl Stat 2008, 2:808-840.
29. Apel RJ, Sweeten G. Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. Handbook of Quantitative Criminology 2010, 543-562. New York: Springer, Piquero AR, Weisburd D.
30. Leuven E, Sianesi B. PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. 2003, http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
31. StataCorp Stata Statistical Software: Release 12 2011, College Station, TX: StataCorp LP, StataCorp.
32. Austin PC. Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Stat Med 2009, 28:3083-3107. 10.1002/sim.3697, 3472075, 19757444.
33. Friedman AS. Substance use/abuse as a predictor to illegal and violent behavior: A review of the relevant literature. Aggress Viol Behav 1999, 3:339-355.
34. Cohen MA, Rust RT, Steen S, Tidd ST. Willingness-to-pay for crime control programs. Criminology 2004, 42:89-110.
35. US Government Accountability Office Adult drug courts: studies show courts reduce recidivism, but DOJ could enhance future performance measure revision efforts 2011, Washington, DC, US Government Accountability Office.
36. Brown R. Associations with substance abuse treatment completion among drug court participants. Subst Use Miuse 2010, 45:1874-1891.
37. Hickert AO, Boyle SW, Tollefson DR. Factors that predict drug court completion and drop out: Findings from an evaluation of Salt Lake County's adult felony drug court. J Soc Sci Res 2009, 35:149-162.
38. Mendoza NS, Trinidad JR, Nochajski TH, Farrell MC. Symptoms of depression and successful drug court completion. Community Ment Health J 2013, 49:787-792. 10.1007/s10597-013-9595-5, 23325072.
39. Longshore D, Turner S, Wenzel S, Morral A, Harrell A, McBride D, Deschenes E, Iguchi M. Drug courts: a conceptual framework. J Drug Issues 2001, 31:7-25.
40. Sloan FA, Chepke LM, Davis DV. Race, gender, and risk perceptions of the legal consequences of drinking and driving. J Safety Res 2013, 45:117-125. 3674875, 23708483.
41. Sloan FA, Eldred LM, Xu Y. The behavioral economics of drunk driving. J Health Econ 2014, 35:64-81.
42. National Association of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards Committee Drug Courts Program Office. Defining Drug Courts: The Key Components 1997, Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Association of Drug Court Professionals Drug Court Standards Committee.
43. Fulton Hora P. Courting new solutions using problem-solving justice: key components, guiding principles, strategies, responses, models, approaches, blueprints, and tool kits. Chapman J Crim Just 2011, 2:7-52.
44. Gates JE. Miss. Drug Courts Facing Fund Cuts, Some Closures 2013, 1-3. City: Hattiesburg American.
45. Anglin MD, Nosyk B, Jaffe A, Urada D, Evans E. Offender diversion Into substance use disorder treatment: the economic impact of California's Proposition 36. Am J Public Health 2013, 103:1096-1102. 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301168, 3698729, 23597352.
46. Sevigny EL, Pollack HA, Reuter P. Can drug courts help to reduce prison and jail populations?. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 2013, 647:190-212.