OBJECTIVESThis study evaluates the effects of a prison-based addiction intervention program. The evaluation is based on a multidimensional data collection that draws a portrait of the respondents’ substance use, and of their psychological/emotional, social, and judicial spheres. It measures the changes, or lack thereof, in substance use; the psychological/emotional, social, and judicial spheres; as well as the post-treatment services used.METHODA quasi-experimental repeated measures design (0, 6 weeks, and 6 months) was used. Effects of the program were identified by comparing the results obtained by a group of inmates who had participated in the program (n = 80; experimental group) with those of another group who had received no intervention (n = 70; control group).RESULTSThe preliminary results suggested a certain treatment effect related to impulsivity and psychological distress.CONCLUSIONAlthough the preliminary results were promising, the experimental and control groups did not differ significantly when more robust analyses were used.

Previous research has documented associations of addiction with delinquency and psychological problems. However, few studies have evaluated their influence on adolescent's drug use trajectories. The current study aims to examine the influence of these factors on the recovery trajectories of 199 youths aged 15.6 years on average admitted to inpatient and outpatient addiction treatment centers, followed up three and six months later. Results indicate that youth who show higher severity of drug abuse exhibit greater improvement than youth with a lower severity of drug abuse at the onset of treatment. Although psychological problems were associated with baseline drug use, they did not influence drug use trajectory over time. Only delinquency influenced the recovery trajectories of these youth. Results suggest that a high level of delinquency can have a significant effect on the drug recovery process of adolescents and that interventions should attempt to reduce both drug use and delinquency.

RésuméDepuis les années 2000, on estime que de 5 % à 8 % des jeunes Québécois éprouvent des difficultés importantes de consommation de substances psychoactives (SPA), ce qui pose la question cruciale des traitements de ces problèmes. Cet article propose d'abord un survol des principaux services offerts aux jeunes et des facteurs, liés ou non au traitement, pouvant expliquer les changements dans le processus de rétablissement des jeunes toxicomanes québécois. La présenta-tion de cinq études dirigées par les auteurs du présent article permet une certaine réflexion sur les services offerts aux jeunes Québécois ayant un problème de consommation de SPA. Il ressort, notamment, qu'une diminution de la consommation de SPA survient dans les six à douze mois suivant l'admission des jeunes dans l'un des traitements. Il ne s'agit généralement pas d'une abstinence complète, ce qui n'est d'ailleurs pas visé par la plupart des jeunes en traitement. Des changements dans d'autres sphères de leur vie, les occupations par exemple, sont aussi observables. Les résultats sur la santé psychologique sont plus mitigés. La satisfaction des jeunes face à ces traitements semble généralement positive. Parmi les facteurs de changements identifiés par les jeunes, on retrouve notamment l'alliance thérapeutique, le contexte de traitement en groupe, le soutien parental, la fréquentation de pairs conformistes et des activités sportives ou artistiques alternatives à la consommation. Les résultats sur les trajectoires permettent de constater que plusieurs types de trajectoire de réadaptation existent, que le succès du traitement ne prend pas nécessairement la forme d'une abstinence et surtout pas d'une abstinence définitive et que les trajectoires sont sinueuses. Mots-clés :

No abstract

This issue of the Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation (CJPE) is one of our most comprehensive to date. Not only does it include five full articles, fi ve practice notes, and two book reviews, but it also covers a wide range of evaluation-related topics, practices, and studies. I am pleased to note that our editorial team contin ues to receive high-quality submissions, and I encourage you to keep thinking of the CJPE as an outlet for your work. The articles and practice notes included in this issue focus on four recurring themes that reflect current topics in our field. First, evaluative thinking and capac ity building in non-governmental organizations is the subject of articles by Rog ers, Kelly, and McCoy, as well as by Lu, Elliot, and Perlman. Both articles provide insights into the facilitators of, and barriers to, evaluation capacity building as well as the multiple roles played by evaluators in fostering evaluative thinking amongst organizational staff members. Second, process evaluation appears to be of interest to many evaluators and researchers: Leblanc, Gervais, Dubeau and Delame focus on process evaluation for mental health initiatives, while Parrott and Carman pro vide an example of how process evaluation can contribute to program scaling-up efforts. Chechak, Dunlop, and Holosko also focus on process evaluation and its utility in evaluating youth drop-in programs. Teachers and students of evaluation may be interested in our third theme, which focuses on student contributions to evaluation, both through peer-mentoring-as described in the practice note written by LaChenaye, Boyce, Van Draanen, and Everett-and through the CES Student Evaluation Case Competition-described in a practice note written by Sheppard, Baker, Lolic, Soni, and Courtney. And fourth, we continue to advance our methodological approaches to evaluation, and this is reflected in an article on evaluation in Indigenous contexts by Chandna, Vine, Snelling, Harris, Smylie, and Manson, as well as in an article on the use of an outcome monitoring tool for performance measurement in a clinical psychology setting by Rosval, Yamin, Jamshidi, and Aubry. Czechowski, Sylvestre, and Moreau also feature methods in their practice note on secure data handling for evaluators, a key competency that continues to evolve as our data collection and storage mechanisms adapt to new technology. In addition to these articles and practice notes, this issue also features two book reviews that are sure to interest our readers. First, Bhawra provides an account of