IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v34y2011i2p124-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Evans, Elizabeth
  • Anglin, M. Douglas
  • Urada, Darren
  • Yang, Joy

Abstract

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 high-quality 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.

Suggested Citation

  • Evans, Elizabeth & Anglin, M. Douglas & Urada, Darren & Yang, Joy, 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, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 124-134, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:2:p:124-134
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(10)00079-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hardy, Mary & Teruya, Cheryl & Longshore, Douglas & Hser, Yih-Ing, 2005. "Initial implementation of California's Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act: Findings from focus groups in ten counties," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 221-232, May.
    2. Hser, Y.-I. & Teruya, C. & Brown, A.H. & Huang, D. & Evans, E. & Anglin, M.D., 2007. "Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: Treatment capacity and displacement," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 97(1), pages 104-109.
    3. Hser, Yih-Ing & Evans, Elizabeth & Teruya, Cheryl & Huang, David & Anglin, M. Douglas, 2007. "Predictors of short-term treatment outcomes among California's Proposition 36 participants," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 187-196, May.
    4. Wenzel, Suzanne L. & Turner, Susan F. & Ridgely, M. Susan, 2004. "Collaborations between drug courts and service providers: Characteristics and challenges," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 253-263.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zanti, Sharon & Berkowitz, Emily & Katz, Matthew & Nelson, Amy Hawn & Burnett, T.C. & Culhane, Dennis & Zhou, Yixi, 2022. "Leveraging integrated data for program evaluation: Recommendations from the field," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Massey, Oliver T., 2011. "A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 21-28, February.
    2. Cunningham, James K. & Liu, Lon-Mu, 2008. "Impact of methamphetamine precursor chemical legislation, a suppression policy, on the demand for drug treatment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(7), pages 1463-1473, April.
    3. Evans, Elizabeth & Li, Libo & Hser, Yih-Ing, 2009. "Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 204-212, August.
    4. Nancy Nicosia & John M. MacDonald & Rosalie Liccardo Pacula, 2012. "Does Mandatory Diversion to Drug Treatment Eliminate Racial Disparities in the Incarceration of Drug Offenders? An Examination of California's Proposition 36," NBER Working Papers 18518, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Qiang Li & Yarong Wang & Yi Zhang & Wei Li & Jia Zhu & Ying Zheng & Jiajie Chen & Liyan Zhao & Zhenyu Zhou & Yijun Liu & Wei Wang & Jie Tian, 2013. "Assessing Cue-Induced Brain Response as a Function of Abstinence Duration in Heroin-Dependent Individuals: An Event-Related fMRI Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(5), pages 1-8, May.
    6. Swensen, Isaac D., 2015. "Substance-abuse treatment and mortality," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 13-30.
    7. Hser, Yih-Ing & Evans, Elizabeth & Teruya, Cheryl & Huang, David & Anglin, M. Douglas, 2007. "Predictors of short-term treatment outcomes among California's Proposition 36 participants," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 187-196, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:34:y:2011:i:2:p:124-134. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.