ArticleCrime and delinquency2014
Comparative Effectiveness of California's Proposition 36 and Drug Court Programs Before and After Propensity Score Matching.
Article in Crime and delinquency, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Substance misuse and community supervision: A systematic review of the literature.Forensic science international. Mind and law · 2020Review
- Abstinence at Successful Discharge in Publicly Funded Addiction Health Services.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2016Article
- The effects of participation level on recidivism: a study of drug treatment courts using propensity score matching.Substance abuse treatment, prevention, and policy · 2014Article
- Offender diversion into substance use disorder treatment: the economic impact of California's proposition 36.American journal of public health · 2013Article
- Developmental timing of first drug treatment and 10-year patterns of drug use.Journal of substance abuse treatment · 2013Article
- High-risk offenders participating in court-supervised substance abuse treatment: characteristics, treatment received, and factors associated with recidivism.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2011Article
- Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36.Evaluation and program planning · 2011Article
- Holyoke Early Access to Recovery and Treatment (HEART): A case study of a court-based intervention to reduce opioid overdose.Journal of ethnicity in substance abuseArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.