Advertisement

American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 395–408 | Cite as

An Outcome Evaluation of a Substance Abuse Program for Probationers: Findings from a Quasi-Experimental Design

  • Meghan E. Hollis
  • Wesley G. JenningsEmail author
  • Shannon Hankhouse
Article

Abstract

The current study provides an evaluation of a substance abuse treatment program for probationers in a county in the state of Texas. Relying on a quasi-experimental design with a propensity score matched sample of 69 treatment group subjects and 69 control group subjects, the results revealed that while a significant treatment effect was observed for program participants in terms of a reduction in recidivism, a significant treatment effect on the percentage of people failing drug tests or the rate of failed drug tests was not detected. Study limitations and implications are also discussed.

Keywords

Probation Recidivism Substance abuse Treatment Propensity score matching 

Notes

References

  1. Austin, P. C. (2009). Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: Results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biomedical Journal, 51, 171–184.Google Scholar
  2. Benedict, W. R., Huff-Corzine, L., & Corzine, J. (1998). ‘Clean up and go straight’: Effects of drug treatment on recidivism among felony probationers. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 169–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carson, E. A., & Anderson, E. (2016). Prisoners in 2015: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  4. Disbury, K. L., Kopak, A. M., Dean, L. V., Moyes, H. C. A., Breedvelt, J. J. F., Thibaut, B. I., Cole, C. R. F., & Heath, J. J. (2015). Pre- to posttreatment differences in measures of risk of relapse and reoffending for participants of RAPt’s 6-weeks programs. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 54, 556–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans, E., Jaffe, A., Urada, D., & Anglin, M. D. (2012). Differential outcomes of court-supervised substance abuse treatment among California parolees and probationers. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 56, 539–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (2006). Recidivism following mandated residential substance abuse treatment for felony probationers. The Prison Journal, 86, 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2011). Matchit: Nonparametric preprocessing for parametric causal inference. Journal of Statistical Software, (8), 1–28.Google Scholar
  8. Huebner, B. M., & Cobbina, J. (2007). The effect of drug use, drug treatment participation, and treatment completion on probationer recidivism. The Journal of Drug Issues, 7, 619–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. James, D. J. (2004). Profile of jail inmates (p. 2002). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  10. Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., Lynch, M., Jetelina, K. K., & Reingle Gonzalez, J. (2017). A quasi-experimental evaluation of the effects of police body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance in a large metropolitan police department. Deviant Behavior, 38, 1332–1339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jennings, W.G., & Hudak, E. (2014). “Police response to the mentally ill.” In R. G. Dunham &. G. P. Alpert (eds.), Critical issues in policing: Contemporary readings (6th edition) (pp. 109–126). Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
  12. Jennings, W. G., Richards, T., Smith, M. D., Bjerregaard, B., & Fogel, S. (2014). A critical examination of the “White victim effect” and death penalty decision-making from a propensity score matching approach: The North Carolina experience. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 384–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jennings, W. G., Richards, T., Tomsich, E., & Gover, A. (2015). Investigating the role of child sexual abuse in intimate partner violence victimization and perpetration in young adulthood from a propensity score matching approach. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 24, 659–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krebs, C. P., Strom, K. J., Koetse, W. H., & Lattimore, P. K. (2009). The impact of residential and nonresidential drug treatment on recidivism among drug-involved probationers: A survival analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 55, 442–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lattimore, P. K., Krebs, C. P., Koetse, W., Lindquist, C., & Cowell, A. J. (2005). Predicting the effect of substance abuse treatment on probationer recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 159–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Linhorst, D. M., Dirks-Linhorst, P. A., & Groom, R. (2012). Rearrest and probation violation outcomes among probationers participating in a jail-based substance-abuse treatment used as an intermediate sanction. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 51, 519–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Marlowe, D. B. (2010). Research update on adult drug courts. Washington, DC: National Association of Drug Court Professionals.Google Scholar
  18. Mauer, M., & King, R. (2007). A 25-Year Quagmire: The War on Drugs and its Impact on American Society. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.Google Scholar
  19. Miller, H. V., & Miller, J. M. (2010). Community in-reach through jail reentry: Findings from a quasi-experimental design. Justice Quarterly, 27, 893–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller, J. M., & Khey, D. N. (2016). An implementation and process evaluation of the Louisiana 22nd Judicial District’s behavioral health court. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 124–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Miller, J. M., & Miller, H. V. (2011). Considering the effectiveness of drug treatment behind bars: Findings from the South Carolina RSAT Program. Justice Quarterly, 28, 70–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Miller, J. M., & Miller, H. V. (2015). Rethinking program fidelity for criminal justice. Criminology & Public Policy, 14, 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Miller, J. M., & Miller, H. V. (2016). Validating program fidelity: Lessons from the Delaware county second chance initiatives. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41, 112–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Minton, T. D., & Zeng, Z. (2016). Jail Inmates in 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  25. Moore, L. D., & Elkavich, A. (2008). Who’s using and who’s doing time: Incarceration, the War on Drugs, and public health. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 782–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pearl, J. (2009). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Peck, J., & Jennings, W. G. (2016). A critical examination of ‘being Black’ in the juvenile justice system: A propensity score matching approach. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 219–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2002). Observational studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observation studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sung, H., Mahoney, A. M., & Mellow, J. (2011). Substance abuse treatment gap among adult parolees: Prevalence, correlates, and barriers. Criminal Justice Review, 36(1), 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Taxman, F. S., & Belenko, S. (2011). Implementing evidence-based practices in community corrections and addiction treatment. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  32. Turan, R., & Yargic, I. (2012). The relationship between substance abuse treatment completion, sociodemographics, substance use characteristics, and criminal history. Substance Abuse, 33, 92–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. United States Census Bureau (2018). Quick facts: McLennan County, Texas. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/mclennancountytexas. Accessed 17 Jan 2019.
  34. Weisburd, D., Lu, C. M., & Petrosino, A. (2001). Does research design affect study outcomes in criminal justice? The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Welsh, B. C., Peel, M. E., Farrington, D. P., Elffers, H., & Braga, A. A. (2011). Research design influence on study outcomes in crime and justice: A partial replication with public area surveillance. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Meghan E. Hollis
    • 1
  • Wesley G. Jennings
    • 2
    Email author
  • Shannon Hankhouse
    • 3
  1. 1.Ronin InstituteHillsboroUSA
  2. 2.School of Criminal Justice, College of Applied ArtsTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  3. 3.Tarleton State UniversityStephenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations