Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:55 am
Time: 3:55 am
Results for risk-needs assessment
2 results foundAuthor: Thompson, Carleen Title: Review of Empirically Based Risk/Needs Assessment Tools for Youth Justice: Amended Report for Public Release Summary: This report was commissioned on the 8 November, 2005 by the Office of Youth, Department of Communities. The purpose of the report was to evaluate the evidence base for youth justice risk/needs assessment tools and to make recommendations about which of these tools might best meet Queensland’s unique needs and current circumstances. What is an evidence base? Evidence-based policy has been defined as an approach that “helps people make well informed decisions about policies, programmes and projects by putting the best available evidence from research at the heart of policy development and implementation” (Davis, 1999). Importantly, however, it must be recognised that not all research is of the same quality (Davis, Nutley, & Smith, 2000). Evidence-based policy and practice stresses that the research should not only be competently designed and carried out, but that data should support the findings and conclusions. Additionally, there should be a discussion of the methodological limitations of the study that may potentially bias results, indicate alternative explanations or limit the generalisability of the results (Rycus & Hughes, in press). Evidence-based policy requires a systematic approach to search for appropriate evidence, the critical appraisal of studies that are identified, and a balanced understanding of what the research evidence indicates, taking into account both its strengths and weaknesses (Davis et al., 2000). In recent years there has been a recognition that decision-making in the human services should be guided by evidence derived from scientific research (Gambrill, 1999; Gambrill & Shlonsky, 2000). This push for evidence-based practice arose from the realisation that practitioners did not routinely use the best available evidence for their decisions (R. Borum, 2003; Hoge, 2002; A. Rose, 2003; Wiebush, Baird, Krisberg, & Onek, 1995). Youth justice decision making is no exception to these findings, whereby judgements are often made on the basis of factors which lack empirical support. Furthermore, those variables grounded in empirical evidence are often excluded from the decision making process (R. Borum, 1996; Wiebush et al., 1995). The following report utilised numerous sources of evidence to elucidate best practice guidelines for risk/needs assessments and the evaluation of such tools in the youth justice field. The sources utilised in this report include: refereed journal articles, conference presentations and proceedings, independent evaluations commissioned by government agencies which were publicly available, and descriptions and evaluations provided by the risk/needs assessment developers and publishers. The most weight was accorded to empirical evidence derived from either quantitative research or surveys, or descriptive or qualitative research that was published in peer-reviewed journals. Peer review is the process through which experts in a field of study assess the quality of articles that are submitted to a journal for publication. Consequently, while the standard of journals vary, this process ensures that all articles published meet the standards for that publication. Conference presentations and proceedings do not meet the same benchmark standards as peer-reviewed journals. However, these reports are available for critical appraisal by the research community. Similarly, independently commissioned evaluation reports funded by governments, and available in the public domain, were also considered to be indicative of an evidence base. Internal government/ organisational reports were included because the description of many of the programs and the implementation of these programs was only available through internal reports. Because these reports were generally not subjected to independent critical appraisal, a lesser weight was accorded to them in respect to their contribution to the evidence base. These reports were assessed on the basis of the empirical evidence they presented and the methodological soundness of their research design. Details: Mt. Gravatt, QLD: Justice Modelling@Griffith University, 2006. 246p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2012 at: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/208206/Review-of-empiricall-based-risk_needs-assessment-tools.pdf Year: 2006 Country: Australia URL: http://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/208206/Review-of-empiricall-based-risk_needs-assessment-tools.pdf Shelf Number: 127113 Keywords: Evidence-Based PolicyJuvenile Justice PolicyJuvenile Offenders (Australia)Risk-Needs Assessment |
Author: White, Elise Title: Up and Out: Toward an Evidence-Based Response to Misdemeanors Summary: If not jail, then what? Jurisdictions across the country continue to grapple with this question, particularly in response to low-level criminal offending. In the absence of meaningful, legally-proportionate alternatives, many jurisdictions default to the use of short-term incarceration, which brings with it significant financial cost as well as negative outcomes for individuals and communities. Up & Out offers an alternative. It is a brief, non-custodial intervention designed for defendants with misdemeanor cases - i.e., a defendant population with serious treatment needs that cannot be sentenced to intensive long-term interventions (e.g., drug treatment) for reasons of proportionality. The Up & Out project unfolded in two phases. Phase 1 began with the creation and validation of a risk-needs assessment for defendants with misdemeanor cases in New York City, designed to determine key criminogenic needs of the misdemeanor target population (Picard-Fritsche et al. 2018). Based on preliminary Phase 1 findings, Phase 2 involved developing the Up & Out curriculum; piloting the brief intervention in two New York City sites; and conducting a process and impact evaluation of the pilot. The current report summarizes findings from Phase 2. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2018. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 13, 2018 at: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/upout_misdemeanors.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/media/document/2018/upout_misdemeanors.pdf Shelf Number: 152931 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDiversionEvidence-Based PracticesMisdemeanorsProcedural JusticeRisk-Needs Assessment |