Les tribunaux de traitement de la toxicomanie : méta-analyse. Ont-ils un effet positif sur les taux de récidive ?

• Page précédente
• Table des matières

Références

• Fielding, J. E., Tye, G., Ogawa, P. L., Imam, I. J., & Long, A. M. (2002). Los Angeles County drug court programs: Initial results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23, 217-224.
• Glass, G., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982). Meta Analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Latimer, J. (2001). A meta-analytic examination of youth delinquency, family treatment and recidivism. Revue canadienne de criminologie et de justice pénale, 43, 237-253.
• Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46 (4), 522-541.
• Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury, CA: Sage.

Études utilisées pour la méta-analyse

• Bavon, A. (2001). The effect of the Tarrant County drug court project on recidivism. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 13-22.
• Brewster, M. P. (2001). An evaluation of the Chester County (PA) drug court program. Journal of Drug Issues, 31 (1), 177-206.
• Cosden, M., Crothers, L., & Peerson, S. (1999). Superior Court of California, County of Ventura: Drug court summary findings. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Graduate School of Education.
• Craddock, A. (2002). North Carolina drug treatment court evaluation: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice: Drug Courts Program Office.
• Deschenes, E. P., Cresswell, L., Emami, V., Moreno, K., Klein, Z., & Condon, C. (2001). Success of drug courts in Orange County, California: Process and outcome evaluations. Technical Report. Long Beach, CA: California State University Long Beach, Department of Criminal Justice.
• Deschenes, E. P., & Greenwood, P. W. (1994). Maricopa County's drug court: An innovative program for first-time offenders on probation. Justice System Journal, 17(1), 99-115.
• Dickie, J. L., (2002) Summit Country Juvenile Court Drug Court Evaluation Report July 1, 2001 – June 30, 2002. OH: The University of Akron: The Institute for Health and Social Policy.
• Ericson, R., Welter, S., & Johnson, T. L. (1999). Evaluation of the Hennepin County drug court. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Citizens Council on Crime & Justice.
• Fielding, J. E., Tye, G., Ogawa, P. L., Imam, I. J., & Long, A. M. (2002). Los Angeles County drug court programs: Initial results. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 23, 217-224.
• Gliksman, L., Newton-Taylor, B., Patra, J., & Rehm, J. (2004). Toronto drug treatment court evaluation project final report. London, ON: Centre de toxicomanie et de santé mentale, Social, Prevention and Health Policy Research Department.
• Goldkamp, J. S. (1994). Miami's treatment drug court for felony defendants: Some implications of assessment findings. The Prison Journal, 73 (2), 110-166.
• Goldkamp, J. S. & Weiland, D. (1993). Assessing the impact of Dade County's felony drug court (Final Report). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute.
• Goldkamp, J. S., Weiland, D., & Moore, J. (2001). The Philadelphia treatment court, its development and impact: The second phase (1998-2000). Technical Report. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute.
• Goldkamp, J. S., White, M. D., & Robinson, J. B. (2001). From whether to how drug courts work: Retrospective evaluation of drug courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland). Technical Report. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University, Crime and Justice Research Institute.
• Gottfredson, D. C., Najaka, S. S., Kearley, B., & Rocha, M. (2005). Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study. MD: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.
• Gottfredson, D. C., Coblentz, K., & Harmon, M. A. (1997). A short-term outcome evaluation of the Baltimore City drug treatment court program. American Probation and Parole Association: Perspectives, Winter, 33-38.
• Granfield, R., Eby, C., & Brewster, T. (1998). An examination of the Denver drug court: The impact of a treatment-oriented drug-offender system. Law & Policy, 20 (2), 183-202.
• Harrell, A., Roman, J., & Sack, E. (2001). Drug court services for female offenders, 1996-1999: Evaluation of the Brooklyn treatment court. Technical Report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
• Harrison, L., Patrick, D., & English, K. (2001). An evaluation of the Denver drug court: The early years, 1995-1996. Unpublished Manuscript. Denver, CO: Colorado Department of Public Safety, Office of Research & Statistics, Division of Criminal Justice.
• Harrison, R. S., Parsons, B. V., Eddings, S. K., Byrnes, E. I., & Sahami, S. (2001).Salt Lake County drug court: Evaluation report September 1998 through September 2000. Salt Lake City, UT: Intermountain Evaluation Services.
• Hartmann, D. J., Rhineberger, G. M., Gregory, P., Mullins, M., Tollini, C., & Williams, Y. (2003). Evaluation of the Kalamazoo County juvenile drug treatment court program: October 1, 2001 – September 30, 2002, year 5. Technical Report. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University, Kecher Centre for Social Research.
• Hein, M. L. (2005). Lancaster County adult drug court: An evaluation of the first three years. Washington, DC: ISED Solutions.
• Huff, D., Stageberg, P., Wilson, B. S., & Moore, R. G. (2002). An assessment of the Polk County juvenile drug court. Unpublished Manuscript. IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.
• Johnson, S. & Latessa, E. J. (2000). The Hamilton County drug court: Outcome evaluation findings. Unpublished Manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
• Johnson Listwan, S., Koetzle Shaffer, D., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). The Akron Municipal drug court: Outcome evaluation findings. Unpublished Manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
• Johnson Listwan, S., Koetzle Shaffer, D., & Latessa, E. J. (2001). The Erie County drug court: Outcome evaluation findings. Unpublished Manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
• Johnson Listwan, S., Sundt, J. L., Holsinger, A. M., & Latessa, E. J. (2003). The effect of drug court programming on recidivism: The Cincinnati experience. Crime & Delinquency, 49 (3), 389-411.
• Latessa, E. J., Koetzle Shaffer, D., & Lowenkamp, (2001). Preliminary evaluation of Ohio's drug court efforts. Unpublished Manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
• Latessa, E. J., Koetzle Shaffer, D., & Lowenkamp, C. (2002). Outcome evaluation of Ohio's drug court efforts: Final report. Unpublished Manuscript. Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
• Lind, B., Weatherburn, D., Chen, S., Shanahan, M., Lancsar, E., Haas, M., & De Abreu Lourenco, R. (2002). New South Wales drug court evaluation: Cost effectiveness. Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
• Logan, T. K., Hoyt, W., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Kentucky drug court outcome evaluation: Behaviors, costs and avoided costs to society. KY: Center on Drug and Alcohol Research, University of Kentucky.
• Makkai, T. & Veraar, K. (2003). Final report on the South East Queensland drug court. Australian Institute of Criminology.
• Martin, T. (2005). Douglas County drug court targeted capacity expansion grant, year 3 evaluation report. Washington, DC: ISED Solutions.
• Martinez, A. I. & Eisenberg, M. (2003). Initial process and outcome evaluation of drug courts in Texas. Unpublished Manuscript. Austin, TX: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
• Miethe, T. D., Lu, H., & Reese, E. (2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46 (4), 522-541.
• Millson, W. A., Robinson, D., Stringer, A. & Van Dieten, M. (2005). Drug treatment court of Vancouver program evaluation: Final evaluation report. Ottawa, ON: Orbis Partners Inc.
• National Institute on Drug Abuse (2003). Crossing the bridge: An evaluation of the drug treatment alternative-to-prison (DTAP) program. A CASA White Paper. New York, NY: Columbia University, National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse.
• O'Connell, J. P., Nestlerode, E., & Miller, M. (1999) Evaluation of the Delaware juvenile drug court diversion program. DE: Criminal Justice Council's Statistical Analysis Centre.
• Peters, R. H., Haas, A. L., Hunt, & W. M. (2001). Treatment ‘dosage' effects in drug court programs. In J. J. Hennessy & N. J. Pallone (eds.), Drug courts in operation: Current research (pp. 63-72). NY: Hawthorn Press, Inc.
• Peters, R. H. & Murrin, M. R. (2000). Effectiveness of treatment-based drug courts in reducing criminal recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 27(1), 72-96.
• Rempel, M., Fox-Kralstein, D., Cissner, A., Cohen, R., Labriola, M., Farole, D.,
• Bader, A., & Magnani, M. (2003) The New York State adult drug court evaluation policies, participants and impacts. NY: Centre for Court Innovation.
• Rodriguez, N. & Webb, V. J. (2004). Multiple measures of juvenile drug court effectiveness: Results of a quasi-experimental design. Crime & Delinquency, 50(2), 292-318.
• Salt Lake County. (2001). Salt Lake County drug court outcome evaluation. UT: Utah Substance Abuse & Anti-Violence Coordinating Council.
• Santa Clara County. (1998). Santa Clara County drug treatment court: Two year progress report and outcome comparisons (March 1, 1996- March 31, 1998). Retrieved from: http://spa.american.edu/justice/publications/santacl.htm
• Sechrest, D. K., Shichor, D., Artist, K., & Briceno, G. (1998). The Riverside County drug court: Final research report for the Riverside County Probation Department. San Bernardino, CA: California State University, Criminal Justice Department.
• Solop, F. I., Wonders, N. A., Hagen, K. K., & McCarrier, K. (2003). Coconino County DUI/drug court evaluation. AZ: Social Research Laboratory, Northern Arizona University.
• Spohn, C., Piper, R. K., Martin, T., & Frenzel, E. D. (2001). Drug courts and recidivism: The results of an evaluation using two comparison groups and multiple indicators of recidivism. Journal of Drug Issues, 31(1), 149-176.
• Stageberg, P., Wilson, B., & Moore, R. G. (2001). Final report on the Polk County adult drug court: Executive summary and summary of findings. Unpublished Manuscript. IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.
• Terry, W. C. (1999). Broward County's dedicated drug treatment court: From post-adjudication to diversion. In W. C. Terry, III (ed.) The early drug courts: Case studies in judicial innovation, drugs, health, and social policy series (Vol. 7, pp. 77-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
• Thompson, K. M. (2002). A cost-benefit estimate of North Dakota's juvenile drug court: Recidivism cost savings. ND: North Dakota State University.
• Turner, S., Greenwood, P., Fain, T., & Deschenes, E. (1999). Perceptions of drug court: How offenders view ease of program completion, strengths and weaknesses, and the impact on their lives. U.S. Department of Justice: National Drug Court Institute.
• Vito, G. F. & Tewksbury, R. A. (1998). The impact of treatment: The Jefferson County (Kentucky) drug court program. Federal Probation, 62 (2), 46-51.
• Wolfe, E., Guydish, J., & Termondt, J. (2002). A drug court outcome evaluation comparing arrests in a two year follow-up period. Journal of Drug Issues, 32 (4), 1155-1172.
• Wright, D. & Clymer, B. (2001). Evaluation of Oklahoma drug courts, 1997-2000. Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Centre.

• Page précédente
• Table des matières