The efficacy of diversion and aftercare strategies for adult drug-involved offenders: a summary and methodological review of the outcome literature

References

• Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (ADCA). Best practice in the diversion of alcohol and other drug offenders. Proceedings of the ADCA diversion forum. Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia, Canberra 1996
   Google Scholar
• O'Callaghan F, Sondregger N, Klag S. Drug and crime cycle: evaluating traditional methods versus diversion strategies for drug-related offences. Aust Psychol 2004; 39: 188–200
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spooner C, Hall W, Mattick R. An overview of diversion strategies for Australian drug-related offenders. Drug Alcohol Rev 2001; 20: 281–294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bean P. Drug treatment courts, British style: the drug treatment court movement in Britain. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37: 1595–1614
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belenko S. The challenges of conducting research in drug treatment court settings. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37: 1635–1664
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makkai T. The emergence of drug treatment courts in Australia. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37: 1567–1594
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taplin S. New South Wales Drug Court evaluation: a process evaluation. NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Attorney General's Department, Sydney 2002
   Google Scholar
• Bull M. A comparative review of best practice guidelines for the diversion of drug related offenders. Int J Drug Policy 2005; 16: 223–234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison L D, Scarpitti F R. Introduction: progress and issues in drug treatment courts. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37: 1441–1467
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wild T C, Roberts A B, Cooper E L. Compulsory substance abuse treatment: an overview of recent findings and issues. Eur Addict Res 2002; 8: 84–93
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guydish J, Wolfe E, Tajima B, Woods W J. Drug court effectiveness: a review of California evaluation reports, 1995 – 1999. J Psychoact Drugs 2001; 33: 369–378
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belenko S. Research on drug courts: a critical review. Natl Drug Court Inst Rev 1998; 1: 1
   Google Scholar
• Belenko S. Research on drug courts: a critical review update. Natl Drug Court Inst Rev 1999; 2: 1
   Google Scholar
• Belenko S. Research on drug courts: a critical review 2001 update. National Centre on Addiction and Substance Abuse, Columbia University, New York 2001
   Google Scholar
• Lawrence R, Freeman K. Design and Implementation of Australia's first drug court. Aust NZ J Criminol 2002; 35: 63–78
   Google Scholar
• Brown B S, O'Grady K, Battjes R J, Farrell E V. Factors associated with treatment outcomes in an aftercare population. Am J Addict 2004; 13: 447–460
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenberg G A, Rosenheck R A, Seibyl C L. Continuity of care and clinical effectiveness: outcomes following residential treatment for severe substance abuse. Med Care 2002; 40: 246–259
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKay J R. Effectiveness of continuing care interventions for substance abusers: implications for the study of long-term treatment effects. Eval Rev 2001; 25: 211–232
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Centre for Disease Control. Community Guide Task Force Methods (data abstraction form), Available at: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/methods/abstractionform.pdf (accessed 4 May 2007)
   Google Scholar
• Anglin M D, Longshore D, Turner S. Treatment alternatives to street crime (TASC): an evaluation of five programs. Crim Justice Behav 1999; 26: 168–195
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broner N, Lattimore P K, Cowell A J, Schlenger W E. Effects of diversion on adults with co-occurring mental illness and substance use: outcomes from a national multi-site study. Behav Sci Law 2004; 22: 519–541
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cowell A J, Broner N, Dupont R. The cost-effectiveness of criminal justice diversion programs for people with serious mental illness co-occurring with substance abuse: four case studies. J Contemp Crim Justice 2004; 20: 292–315
   Google Scholar
• Peters R H, Murrin M R. Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Crim Justice Behav 2000; 27: 72
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shafer M S, Arthur B, Franczak M J. An analysis of post-booking jail diversion programming for persons with co-occurring disorders. Behav Sci Law 2004; 22: 771–785
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fielding J E, Tye G, Ogawa P L. Los Angeles county drug court programs: initial results. J Subst Abuse Treat 2002; 23: 217–224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrell A, Mitchell O, Hirst A, Marlow D, Merril J. Breaking the cycle of drugs and crime: findings from the Birmingham BTC demonstration. Criminol Public Policy 2002; 1: 189–216
   Google Scholar
• Heale P, Lang E. A process evaluation of the CREDIT (Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment) pilot programme. Drug Alcohol Rev 2001; 20: 223–230
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoff R A, Rosenheck R A, Baranosky M V, Buchanan J, Zonana H. Diversion from jail of detainees with substance abuse: the interaction with dual diagnosis. Am J Addict 1999; 8: 201–210
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bavon A. The effect of the Tarrant County drug court project on recidivism. Eval Prog Plann 2001; 24: 13–22
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belenko S, Foltz C, Lang M A, Sung H -E. Recidivism among high-risk drug felons: a longitudinal analysis following residential treatment. J Offend Rehab 2004; 40: 105–132
   Google Scholar
• Broner N, Mayrl D W, Landsberg G. Outcomes of mandated and nonmandated New York City jail diversion for offenders with alcohol, drug, and mental disorders. Prison J 2005; 85: 18–49
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dynia P, Sung H E. The safety and effectiveness of diverting felony drug offenders to residential treatment as measured by recidivism. Crim Justice Policy Rev 2000; 11: 299–311
   Google Scholar
• Spohn C, Piper R K, Martin T, Frenzel E D. Drug courts and recidivism: the results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. J Drug Issues 2001; 31: 149–176
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deschenes E P, Turner S, Greenwood P W. Drug court or probation? An experimental evaluation of Maricopa County's drug court. Justice Syst J 1995; 18: 55–73
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottfredson D C, Kearley B W, Najaka S S, Rocha C M. The Baltimore city drug treatment court: 3-year self-report outcome study. Eval Rev 2005; 29: 42–64
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind B, Weatherburn D, Chen S, et al. New South Wales Drug Court evaluation: cost-effectiveness. Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Sydney, NSW 2002, Available at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/L15.pdf/$file/L15.pdf (accessed 11 May 2007)
   Google Scholar
• Payne J. Final report on the North Queensland Drug Court. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra 2005, Technical background paper
   Google Scholar
• Makkai T, Veraar K. Final report on the South East Queensland Drug Court. Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra 2003, Technical background paper
   Google Scholar
• Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992; 112: 155–159
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hiller M L, Knight K, Simpson D D. Prison-based substance abuse treatment, residential aftercare and recidivism. Addiction 1999; 94: 833–842
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inciardi J A, Martin S S, Butzin C A, et al. An effective model of prison-based treatment for drug-involved offenders. J Drug Issues 1997; 27: 261–278
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inciardi J A, Martin S S, Butzin C A. Five-year outcomes of therapeutic community treatment of drug-involved offenders after release from prison. Crime Delinq 2004; 50: 88–107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knight K, Simpson D D, Chatham L R, Camacho L M. An assessment of prison-based drug treatment: Texas' in-prison therapeutic community program. J Offend Rehab 1997; 24: 75–100
   Google Scholar
• McCollister K E, French M T, Inciardi J A, et al. Post-release substance abuse treatment for criminal offenders: a cost-effectiveness analysis. J Quant Criminol 2003; 19: 389–407
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCollister K E, French M T, Prendergast M, et al. Is in-prison treatment enough? A cost-effectiveness analysis of prison-based treatment and aftercare services for substance-abusing offenders. Law Policy 2003; 25: 63–82
   Google Scholar
• McCollister K E, French M T, Prendergast M L, et al. Long-term cost effectiveness of addiction treatment for criminal offenders. Justice Q 2004; 21: 659–679
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prendergast M L, Hall E A, Cao Y, et al. Amity prison-based therapeutic community: 5-year outcomes. Prison Journal 2004; 84: 36–60
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wexler H K, De Leon G, Thomas G, et al. The Amity prison TC evaluation: reincarceration outcomes. Crim Justice Behav 1999; 26: 147–167
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown B S, O'Grady K E, Battjes R J, Farrell E E, Smith N P, Nurco D N. Effectiveness of a stand-alone aftercare program for drug-involved offenders. J Subst Abuse Treat 2001; 21: 185–192
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dickersin K, Chan S, Chalmers T C, Sacks H S, Smith J H. Publication bias and clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1987; 8: 343–353
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Easterbrook P J, Berlin J A, Gopalan R R. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867–872
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turner S T, Longshore D, Wenzel S, et al. A decade of drug treatment court research. Subst Use Misuse 2002; 37: 1489–1527
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hawkins N G, Sanson-Fisher R W, Shakeshaft A, D'Este C, Green L W. The multiple baseline design for evaluating population-based research. Am J Prev Med, in press
   Google Scholar
• Harvey E, Shakeshaft A, Hetherington K, Sannibale C, Mattick R. Methodological review: outcome studies of diversion and aftercare programs for adult drug-involved offenders. National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Sydney 2006, Technical Report 259
   Google Scholar
• Brown T G, Seraganian P, Tremblay J, Annis H. Process and outcome changes with relapse prevention versus 12-Step aftercare programs for substance abusers. Addiction 2002; 97: 677–689
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham K, Annis H M, Bett P J, Venesoen P. A controlled field trial of group versus individual cognitive – behavioral training for relapse prevention. Addiction 1996; 91: 1127–1139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horng F F, Chueh K H. Effectiveness of telephone follow-up and counseling in aftercare for alcoholism. J Nurs Res 2004; 12: 11–20
   Google Scholar
• McKay J R, Alterman A I, Cacciola J S, O'Brien C P, Koppenhaver J M, Shepard D S. Continuing care for cocaine dependence: comprehensive 2-year outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999; 67: 420–427
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKay J R, Lynch K G, Shepard D S, Pettinati H M. The effectiveness of telephone-based continuing care for alcohol and cocaine dependence: 24-month outcomes. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2005; 62: 199–207
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson D G, Macpherson J, Brady N M. Community psychiatric nurse aftercare for alcoholics: a five-year follow-up study. Addiction 1997; 9: 459–468
   Google Scholar
• Sannibale C, Hurkett P, van den Bossche E, et al. Aftercare attendance and post-treatment functioning of severely substance dependent residential treatment clients. Drug Alcohol Rev 2003; 22: 181–190
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmitz J M, Oswald L M, Jacks S D, Rustin T, Rhoades H M, Grabowski J. Relapse prevention treatment for cocaine dependence: group versus individual format. Addict Behav 1997; 22: 405–418
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar