Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:37 am
Time: 11:37 am
Results for evidence-based practice
2 results foundAuthor: Chan, Linda S. Title: Preventing Violence and Related Health-Risking Social Behaviors in Adolescents Summary: Over the last two decades of the 20th century, violence emerged as one of the most significant public health problems in the United States (Administration for Children and Families, 2004). While recent trends have been encouraging, homicide remains the second leading cause of death among adolescents (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2004). During this period, an increasing number of research studies has have sought to characterize youth violence and the contexts in which it occurs, as well as risk and protective factors associated with such violence. At the same time, a myriad of prevention interventions have been developed and evaluated with multiple youth populations and in a range of settings. In the fall of 2004, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) will convene a State-of-the- Science Conference on “Preventing Violence and Related Health-Risking Social Behaviors in Adolescents.” The purpose of this consensus conference is to provide a forum to present and review what is currently known about preventing youth violence. In preparation for this meeting, the Office of Medical Applications of Research (OMAR) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) nominated and supported the topic for an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)-sponsored systematic review and analysis of the evidence. AHRQ awarded this project to the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center (SC-EPC)and its partner, Childrens Hospital Los Angeles, to conduct the review and summarize the findings in an evidence report. Researchers were to review longitudinal risk factor research to identify the role of individual, family, school, community and peer-level influences as well as interventional research to evaluate prevention intervention effectiveness. This evidence report addresses the following six key questions: 1. What are the factors that contribute to violence and associated adverse health outcomes in childhood and adolescence? 2. What are the patterns of co-occurrence of these factors? 3. What evidence exists on the safety and effectiveness of interventions for violence? 4. Where evidence of safety and effectiveness exists, are there other outcomes beyond reducing violence? If so, what is known about effectiveness by age, sex, and race/ethnicity? 5. What are commonalities of the interventions that are effective, and those that are ineffective? 6. What are the priorities for future research? For the purpose of this evidence review, we used the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s definition of violence: “threatened or actual physical force or power initiated by an individual that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in, physical or psychological injury or death” (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2004). We made the decision to include only the following types of violent behavior: murder or homicide, aggravated assault, non-aggravated assault, rape or sexual assault, robbery, gang fight, physical aggression, psychological injury or harm, and other serious injury or harm. Thus, we did not review the growing literature that reports on studies of suicide, verbal aggression, bullying, arson, weapon carrying, externalizing behaviors (e.g., acting out), attitude about violent behavior, youth crime against property or materials (such as burglary, theft), or intent to commit violence as outcomes. These related behaviors and attitudes are included in this report only to the extent that they have been proposed as risk factors for the forms of violence on which this report focuses. The definition of violence prevention interventions that we used was developed for and published in the Surgeon General’s Report on Youth Violence (Satcher, 2001). According to this definition, “Primary prevention interventions are those that are universal, intended to prevent the onset of violence and related risk factors; secondary prevention interventions are those implemented on a selected scale for children/youth at enhanced risk for youth violence, intended to prevent the onset and reduce the risk of violence; and tertiary prevention interventions are those that are targeted to youth who have already demonstrated violent or seriously delinquent behavior.” Details: Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004. 372p. Source: Internet Resource: Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, no. 107: Accessed May 8, 2014 at: http://archive.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/adolviol/adolviol.pdf Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://archive.ahrq.gov/downloads/pub/evidence/pdf/adolviol/adolviol.pdf Shelf Number: 132296 Keywords: Delinquency PreventionEvidence-Based PracticeJuvenile Delinquents (U.S.)Juvenile OffendersYouth Violence |
Author: Serin, Ralph C. Title: Analysis of the Use of the Structured Decisionmaking Framework in Three States Summary: In recent years, interest in high-quality parole decisionmaking has grown significantly. Paroling authorities are under considerable pressure and subject to substantial public scrutiny as they strive to reach high-quality parole decisions that ensure public safety. In this context, the Legal Decision-Making Lab at Carleton University has been working for nearly a decade to develop and improve a decisionmaking tool for parole practitioners. This tool, the Structured Decisionmaking Framework, acts as a road map or guideline for professional decisionmakers to help them reach consistent, transparent, and defensible high-quality conditional release decisions. It acknowledges the professional expertise and extensive experience of parole decisionmakers by using a structured approach that guides paroling authorities through the process of making parole decisions by considering offender information demonstrated to be closely linked to post-release performance. Given this grounding, the Framework can help paroling authorities incorporate or enhance the use of evidence-based practice in their decisionmaking. Through its technical assistance program, the National Institute of Corrections facilitated opportunities for three states-Ohio, Connecticut, and Kansas-to examine the use of the Structured Decisionmaking Framework in their jurisdictions. The paroling authorities in these states all received training in the use of the Framework. Though the Framework has been extensively validated and its use supported via research in Canada, each state also participated in a small-scale exercise aiming to provide preliminary validation results specific to their jurisdiction. This document summarizes the results of these validation exercises. For all three states, analyses were conducted in two phases. The first phase addressed the applicability of the Framework to each jurisdiction, verified whether all information necessary to complete the Framework was available, and examined: - The distribution of Framework domain ratings in that jurisdiction - Case-specific and discordant information - Variability among coders in rating domains The second phase of analyses was focused on case outcomes and included: - A description of parole and post-release outcomes for the sample - An examination of overall Framework ratings and release recommendations for each case - A comparison of Framework results to actual parole outcomes (where possible) - A comparison of Framework results to parole decisions (where the previous analyses were not possible) Overall, applying the Structured Decisionmaking Framework to a sample of approximately 100 offender cases in each of three states (Ohio, Connecticut, and Kansas) revealed interesting patterns both with respect to the completion of the Framework itself and to its overall results as compared to actual post-release outcomes. With respect to the Framework, a number of findings are noted: 1. Sufficient information was generally available to complete the Framework. However, in one state, this was not the case at the time of data collection; the state has since changed its parole preparation approach to broaden the information available and address this concern. 2. Second, though the authors intend that the Framework be completed according to each board member's expertise, personal experience, and knowledge, there were some items noted under the case-specific factors domain that we believe should not have been included, or that should have been included in a different manner. For example, several items (e.g., behavior on this or a previous sentence) could and should more appropriately have been captured in other Framework domains. 3. Inter-coder variability was also noted. When the Framework is applied in practice, board members are expected to vary as a result of their backgrounds, experience, knowledge, and beliefs. However, an effort was made to obtain consistency among coders for the purposes of this validation exercise, but this did not appear to be wholly successful. If such variability is also noted in board members' completion of the Framework, there may be benefit in periodic ongoing training in the use of the Framework to ensure an accurate understanding of its intended use. This may be profitably achieved using a train-the-trainers approach. Turning to an examination of the how the Framework's overall results compare to actual post-release outcomes, it appears, promisingly, that in the state of Connecticut, the Framework appears to distinguish between offenders who reoffend after release and those who do not. Indeed, these findings suggest that the Framework is more able to do so than is the State's accepted risk instrument, though results in this area are preliminary. For Ohio and Kansas, unfortunately, the virtually non-existent variability in post-decision outcomes among coded cases prevented an examination of how the Framework's overall results compared to actual post-release outcomes. Instead, the association of the Framework with the parole decision was investigated. The identification of greater numbers of aggravating domains within the Framework tended to be associated with decisions to deny, and consideration of Framework ratings (either on their own or together with an actuarial risk estimate) led to (non-significantly) better prediction of parole decisions. Based on the results of these preliminary validation exercises, it appears that the Structured Decisionmaking Framework can contribute to high-quality, transparent, and consistent parole decisionmaking by the Ohio Parole Board, Connecticut Board of Pardons and Parole, and Kansas Prisoner Review Board. Though it must still be confirmed in Ohio and Kansas, the Framework does not appear to influence decisions negatively. Findings in Connecticut and Canada demonstrate that the Framework can increase the quality of parole decision-making. Given the high stakes involved in parole decision-making, even minimal improvements in predictive accuracy can result in fewer victims, better management of strained prison capacity, and cost savings. As such, continued investigation of the use of the Structured Decision-making Framework is warranted and is supported by preliminary promising results. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/028408.pdf Shelf Number: 136961 Keywords: Decision-MakingEvidence-Based PracticeParoleParolees |