Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep;60(6):909-938.
doi: 10.1177/0011128710382342.

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

Elizabeth Evans  1 , Libo Li  1 , Darren Urada  1 , M Douglas Anglin  1
Affiliations

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

Elizabeth Evans et al. Crime Delinq. 2014 Sep.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Proposition 36; drug court; drug treatment outcomes; propensity scoring; recidivism.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. American University. Drug Court Clearinghouse/Adult Technical Assistance Project. Washington, DC: American University Justice Programs Office at the School of Public Affairs; 2009. Retrieved May 25, 2010, from http://www1.spa.american.edu/justice/project.php?ID=1.
    1. Appel J, Backes G, Robbins J. California’s Proposition 36: A success ripe for refinement and replication. Criminology & Public Policy. 2004;3:585–592.
    1. Bean P. Drug treatment courts, British style: The drug treatment court movement in Britain. Substance Use & Misuse. 2002;37:1595–1614. - PubMed
    1. Belenko S. Drug courts. In: Leukefeld CG, Tims F, Farabee, D D, editors. Treatment of drug offenders: Policies and issues. New York: Springer; 2002. pp. 301–318.
    1. Belenko S, DeMatteo D, Patapis N. Drug courts. In: Springer DW, Roberts AR, editors. Handbook of forensic mental health with victims and offenders: Assessment, treatment, and research. New York: Springer; 2007. pp. 385–423.

LinkOut - more resources