154 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21036513)
1. Workforce professionalism in drug treatment services: impact of California's Proposition 36.
Wu F; Hser YI
J Subst Abuse Treat; 2011 Jan; 40(1):44-55. PubMed ID: 21036513
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Impact of California's Proposition 36 on the drug treatment system: treatment capacity and displacement.
Hser YI; Teruya C; Brown AH; Huang D; Evans E; Anglin MD
Am J Public Health; 2007 Jan; 97(1):104-9. PubMed ID: 17138930
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Treating drug-abusing offenders. Initial findings from a five-county study on the impact of California's Proposition 36 on the treatment system and patient outcomes.
Hser YI; Teruya C; Evans EA; Longshore D; Grella C; Farabee D
Eval Rev; 2003 Oct; 27(5):479-505. PubMed ID: 14531316
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Impact of court-mandated substance abuse treatment on clinical decision making.
Niv N; Hamilton A; Hser YI
J Behav Health Serv Res; 2009 Oct; 36(4):505-16. PubMed ID: 18618265
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Drug treatment program compliance and resistance activities during implementation of California's Proposition 36.
Reynolds G
J Health Hum Serv Adm; 2009; 32(1):85-106. PubMed ID: 19558034
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Predictors of short-term treatment outcomes among California's Proposition 36 participants.
Hser YI; Evans E; Teruya C; Huang D; Anglin MD
Eval Program Plann; 2007 May; 30(2):187-96. PubMed ID: 17689324
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Early implementation of Proposition 36: criminal justice and treatment system issues in eight counties.
Speiglman R; Klein D; Miller R; Noble A
J Psychoactive Drugs; 2003 May; 35 Suppl 1():133-41. PubMed ID: 12825756
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Improving the accountability of California's public substance abuse treatment system through the implementation of performance models.
Rawson RA; Gonzales R; Crèvecoeur-MacPhail D; Urada D; Brecht ML; Chalk M; Kemp J; Cunningham M
J Psychoactive Drugs; 2010 Sep; Suppl 6():211-4. PubMed ID: 21138197
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Treatment entry barriers among California's Proposition 36 offenders.
Evans E; Li L; Hser YI
J Subst Abuse Treat; 2008 Dec; 35(4):410-8. PubMed ID: 18514474
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Incorporating a public health approach in drug law: lessons from local expansion of treatment capacity and access under California's Proposition 36.
Klein D; Miller RE; Noble A; Speiglman R
Milbank Q; 2004; 82(4):723-57. PubMed ID: 15595948
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Client and program factors associated with dropout from court mandated drug treatment.
Evans E; Li L; Hser YI
Eval Program Plann; 2009 Aug; 32(3):204-12. PubMed ID: 19150133
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Promising practices for delivery of court-supervised substance abuse treatment: perspectives from six high-performing California counties operating Proposition 36.
Evans E; Anglin MD; Urada D; Yang J
Eval Program Plann; 2011 May; 34(2):124-34. PubMed ID: 20965568
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. A National Study of American Indian and Alaska Native Substance Abuse Treatment: Provider and Program Characteristics.
Rieckmann T; Moore LA; Croy CD; Novins DK; Aarons G
J Subst Abuse Treat; 2016 Sep; 68():46-56. PubMed ID: 27431046
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Employment services utilization and outcomes among substance abusing offenders participating in California's proposition 36 drug treatment initiative.
Evans E; Hser YI; Huang D
J Behav Health Serv Res; 2010 Oct; 37(4):461-76. PubMed ID: 19688598
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. An evaluation of substance misuse treatment providers used by an employee assistance program.
Miller NA
Int J Addict; 1992 May; 27(5):533-59. PubMed ID: 1318273
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Pilot-testing a statewide outcome monitoring system: overview of the California Treatment Outcome Project (CALTOP).
Evans E; Hser YI
J Psychoactive Drugs; 2004 May; Suppl 2():109-14. PubMed ID: 15279122
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The San Francisco centralized intake unit: a description of participants and service episodes.
Woods WJ; Klingemann SD; Guydish JR
J Psychoactive Drugs; 2002; 34(1):17-24. PubMed ID: 12003109
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Ethnic differences in utilization of drug treatment services and outcomes among Proposition 36 offenders in California.
Fosados R; Evans E; Hser YI
J Subst Abuse Treat; 2007 Dec; 33(4):391-9. PubMed ID: 17499958
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Benefit-cost in the California treatment outcome project: does substance abuse treatment "pay for itself"?
Ettner SL; Huang D; Evans E; Ash DR; Hardy M; Jourabchi M; Hser YI
Health Serv Res; 2006 Feb; 41(1):192-213. PubMed ID: 16430607
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The costs of pursuing accreditation for methadone treatment sites: results from a national study.
Zarkin GA; Dunlap LJ; Homsi G
Eval Rev; 2006 Apr; 30(2):119-38. PubMed ID: 16492995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
