Assessing the Efficacy of Alternatives to Incarceration within Seven Federal Districts

References

• Anspach, D. F., & Ferguson, A. S. (1999). Cumberland County’s drug court program: An evaluation report of Project Exodus. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Drug Courts Program Office.
   Google Scholar
• Apel, R. J., & Sweeten, G. (2010). Propensity score matching in criminology and criminal justice. In A. R. Piquero, & D. Weisburd (Eds.), The handbook of quantitative criminology (pp. 543–562). New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, S. O., & Ichino, A. (2002). Estimation of average treatment effects based on propensity scores. The Stata Journal: Promoting Communications on Statistics and Stata, 2(4), 358–377. doi:10.1177/1536867X0200200403
   Google Scholar
• Belenko, S. (1998). Research on drug courts: A critical review. National Drug Court Institute Review, 1, 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Belenko, S. (2001). Research on drug courts: A critical review 2001 update. New York, NY: The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
   Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., Wallace-Capretta, S., Rooney, J., & McAnoy, K. (2002). An outcome evaluation of a restorative justice alternative to incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review, 5(4), 319–338. doi:10.1080/10282580214772
   Google Scholar
• Cadigan, T. P., Johnson, J. L., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2012). The re-validation of the federal pretrial services risk assessment (PTRA). Federal Probation, 76(2), 3.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, T. H., & Lowenkamp, C. (2019). Revalidation of the federal pretrial risk assessment instrument (PTRA): Testing the PTRA for predictive biases. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 46(2), 234–260.
   Google Scholar
• Cotti, C. D., & Haley, M. R. (2014). Estimating the effectiveness of a misdemeanor drug diversion program using propensity score matching and survival analysis. The Social Science Journal, 51(4), 638–644. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2014.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finigan, M. (1998). An outcome program evaluation of the Multnomah County S.T.O.P. drug diversion program. West Linn, OR: State Justice Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Gottfredson, D. C., & Exum, M. L. (2002). The Baltimore city drug treatment court: One-year results from a randomized study. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(3), 337–356. doi:10.1177/002242780203900304
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., Kearley, B. W., & Rocha, C. M. (2006). Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2(1), 67–98.
   Google Scholar
• King, G., & Nielsen, R. (2016). Why propensity scores should not be used for matching. Retrieved from http://j.mp/1sexgVw Download Citation BibTex Tagged XML Download Paper, 378
   Google Scholar
• Leuven, E., & Sianesi, B. (2003). PSMATCH2: Stata module to perform full Mahalanobis and propensity score matching, common support graphing, and covariate imbalance testing. Retrieved from http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html Version 4.0.11.
   Google Scholar
• MacKenzie, B. (2016). The judge is the key component: The importance of procedural fairness in drug-treatment courts. Court Review, 52, 8.
   Google Scholar
• Marlowe, D. (2010). Research update on adult drug courts. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1), 60–71. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2011.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peters, R. H., & Murrin, M. R. (1998). Evaluation of treatment-based drug courts in Florida’s First Judicial Circuit. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Department of Mental Health Law and Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Porter, R., Lee, S., & Lutz, M. (2011). Balancing punishment and treatment: Alternatives to incarceration in New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola, M., Farole, D., … Magnani, M. (2003). The New York State adult drug court evaluation. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
   Google Scholar
• Rempel, M., Green, M., & Kralstein, D. (2012). The impact of adult drug courts on crime and incarceration: Findings from a multi-site quasi-experimental design. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 8(2), 165–192. doi:10.1007/s11292-012-9143-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts-Gray, C. (1994). Process evaluation: SHORT program, 1993–1994. Austin, TX: Resource Network.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55. doi:10.2307/2335942
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1985). Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. The American Statistician, 39(1), 33–38. doi:10.1080/00031305.1985.10479383
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rossman, S. B., Roman, J. K., Zweig, J. M., Rempel, M., & Lindquist, C. H. (2011). The multi-site adult drug court evaluation: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Policy Center.
   Google Scholar
• Scott-Hayward, C. S. (2017). Rethinking federal diversion: The rise of specialized criminal courts. Berkley Journal of Criminal Law, 22(2), 47–109.
   Google Scholar
• Spohn, C., Piper, R. K., Martin, T., & Frenzel, E. D. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The result of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 149–176. doi:10.1177/002204260103100109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urban Institute. (2016). Transforming prisons, restoring lives: Final recommendations of the Charles Colson Task Force on Federal Corrections. Urban Institute. Retrieved December 1, 2018, from https://www.urban.org/research/publication/transforming-prisons-restoring-lives
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Justice. (2013). Smart on crime: Reforming the criminal l Justice System For the 21st Century. Retrieved December 1, 2018, from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2013/08/12/smart-on-crime.pdf
   Google Scholar
• US General Accounting Office. (1997). Drug courts: Overview of growth, characteristics, and results. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
   Google Scholar
• US Government Accountability Office. (2016). Federal prison system: Justice has used alternatives to incarceration, but could better measure program outcomes. Washington, DC: Report to Congressional Committees, United States Government Accountability Office.
   Google Scholar
• US Sentencing Commission. (2017). Federal alternative-to-incarceration court programs. Washington, DC: The Commission. Retrieved from https://www.ussc.gov/research/research-reports/federal-alternative-incarceration-court-programs
   Google Scholar
• Vance, S. E. (2018). Overview of Federal Pretrial Services Initiatives from the Vantage Point of the Criminal Law Committee. Federal Probation, 82, 30.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, D., Mitchell, O., & MacKenzie, D. (2006). A systemic review of drug court effects on recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 459–487. doi:10.1007/s11292-006-9019-4
   Google Scholar