When You Assume … the Reality of Implementing a Legally Mandated Substance Abuse Treatment Program

Wiley, Deane C.; Beattie, Martha; Nguyen, Hung Q.; Puckett, Katherine; Banerjee, Kakoli; Poon, Winnie

doi:10.1080/02791072.2004.10400053

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, studies have documented offender characteristics and treatment needs (Anglin et al, 2007; Brecht, Stein, Evans, Murphy, & Longshore, 2009; Hser et al, 2003; Longshore et al, 2005; Prendergast, Greenwell, Farabee, & Hser, 2009; Urada et al, 2009; Wiley et al, 2004), treatment services utilization and outcomes (Cosden et al, 2006; Evans, Hser, & Huang 2009; Evans, Li, & Hser, 2008; Farabee, Hser, Anglin, & Huang, 2004; Fosados, Evans, & Hser, 2007; Hser, Evans, Teruya, Huang, & Anglin 2007), and cost effectiveness (Hawken, 2008; Longshore, Hawken, Urada, & Anglin, 2006). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Evans¹,

Anglin²,

Urada³

et al. 2011

Evaluation and Program Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Operative for nearly a decade, California's voter-initiated Proposition 36 program offers many offenders community-based substance abuse treatment in lieu of likely incarceration. Research has documented program successes and plans for replication have proliferated, yet very little is known about how the Proposition 36 program works or practices for achieving optimal program outcomes. In this article, we identify policies and practices that key stakeholders perceive to be most responsible for the successful delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment to offenders under Proposition 36. Data was collected via focus groups conducted with 59 county stakeholders in six high-performing counties during 2009. Discussion was informed by seven empirical indicators of program performance and outcomes and was focused on identifying and describing elements contributing to success. Program success was primarily attributed to four strategies, those that: (1) fostered program engagement, monitored participant progress, and sustained cooperation among participants; (2) cultivated buy-in among key stakeholders; (3) capitalized on the role of the court and the judge; and (4) created a setting which promoted a highquality treatment system, utilization of existing resources, and broad financial and political support for the program. Goals and practices for implementing each strategy are discussed. Findings provide a "promising practices" resource for Proposition 36 program evaluation and improvement and inform the design and study of other similar types of collaborative justice treatment efforts.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Evans¹,

Anglin²,

Urada³

et al. 2011

Evaluation and Program Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The policy and programmatic implications of Prop 36 have been much discussed (Appel, Backes, & Robbins, 2004; Ehlers & Ziedenberg, 2006; Klein, Miller, Noble, & Speiglman, 2004; Marlowe, Elwork, Festinger, & McLellan, 2003; Riley, Ebener, Chiesa, Turner, & Ringel, 2000; Speiglman, Klein, Miller, & Noble, 2003). Research has shown that Prop 36 has increased the number of criminal offenders accessing California’s drug treatment system (Hser, Teruya, et al, 2007; Longshore et al, 2005), many of whom were treatment-naive individuals with multiple and complex problems that were unexpectedly severe (Hser et al, 2003; Wiley et al, 2004), resulting in several systemwide impacts (Hardy et al, 2005; Hser, Teruya, et al, 2007; Niv, Hamilton, & Hser, 2009). Most offenders (about 85%) receive substance abuse treatment in outpatient drugfree (nonmethadone) settings, where their median length of stay is approximately 6 months; about 10% receive long-term residential treatment (with a median length of stay of 90 days), and relatively few (<5%) receive short-term residential or narcotic replacement therapies (Urada, Longshore, & Conner, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Evans¹,

Li²,

Urada³

et al. 2010

Crime & Delinquency

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

California’s voter-initiated Proposition 36 (Prop 36) program is often unfavorably compared to drug courts, but little is empirically known about the comparative effectiveness of the two approaches. Using statewide administrative data, analyses were conducted on all Prop 36 and drug court offenders with official records of arrest and drug treatment. Propensity score matching was used to create equivalent groups, enabling comparisons of success at treatment discharge, recidivism over 12 months post-treatment entry, and magnitude of behavioral changes. Significant behavioral improvements occurred for both Prop 36 and drug court offenders, but while more Prop 36 offenders were successful at discharge, more recidivated over 12 months. Core programmatic differences likely contributed to differences in outcomes. Policy implications are discussed.

show abstract

“…Second, Proposition 36 participants who violate conditions of the program (e.g., no-show to treatment and test positive for drug use) or are rearrested for a new drug-related offense do not face immediate criminal justice sanctions but are instead legally entitled to three chances to succeed in Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment 35 (2008) 410 -418 treatment, that is, "three bites of the apple" (Klein, Miller, Noble, & Speiglman, 2004). In effect, Proposition 36 increased the number of criminal offenders accessing California's drug treatment system (Hser et al, 2007;Longshore et al, 2005), many of whom were treatmentnaive individuals with multiple and complex problems that were unexpectedly severe Wiley et al, 2004). One concern expressed by stakeholders was whether the treatment system could successfully engage the Proposition 36 client population, especially the proportion that ostensibly was unmotivated to take advantage of opportunities provided by treatment (Hardy, Teruya, Longshore, & Hser, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders

Evans

Hser

2008

Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explore why some Proposition 36 offenders do not enter drug treatment, we analyzed self-reported and administrative data to compare the characteristics, perceptions, and rearrest rates of 124 untreated and 1,335 treated offenders assessed by 30 sites in five California counties. Offenders were comparable in many domains at assessment; however, untreated offenders were younger, not employed, more criminally severe, and less motivated for treatment. To avoid incarceration was the primary reason for choosing Proposition 36, but there were fewer untreated offenders who felt ready for treatment (12.9% vs. 35.7%) and there were more who accepted the Proposition 36 program only upon recommendation by others (37.9% vs. 11.7%). Reasons for not entering treatment included rearrest (31.6%), no desire for treatment (23.9%), and assignment to a program that was too far away (11.1%). Both groups had fewer total arrests after assessment, but recidivism was higher among untreated offenders. Understanding untreated Proposition 36 offenders can aid efforts to improve treatment entry rates and related outcomes.

show abstract

When You Assume … the Reality of Implementing a Legally Mandated Substance Abuse Treatment Program

Cited by 4 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

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

Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About