Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: May 5, 2024 Sun
Time: 2:25 pm
Time: 2:25 pm
Results for juvenile drug offenders
8 results foundAuthor: Hickert, Audrey O. Title: Evaluation of the Utah Juvenile Drug Courts: Final Report Summary: The report examines 6 Utah Juvenile Drug Courts (JDCs) in Weber, Salt Lake, Tooele, Utah, Emery, and Grand counties, providing descriptive statistics on population served, services offered, and during and post-JDC juvenile recidivism. The four largest JDCs are compared to similar probationers on post-program juvenile and adult recidivism, with a 30 month follow-up period. There were no significant differences on alcohol/drug recidivism between probation and JDC after controlling for other significant factors; however, JDC had significantly less delinquency/criminal recidivism, even after controlling for other significant factors. Details: Salt Lake City, UT: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2010. 75p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 119410 Keywords: Juvenile Drug Courts (Utah)Juvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile ProbationJuvenle Offenders (Utah)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Pessin, Sandi R. Title: An Examination of the Effects of Race on the Assignment of Aftercare Services and the Effects of Aftercare Services on Recidivism for Juvenile Offenders Summary: About 100,000 youth return to their communities from correctional facilities each year. Among these youth, it is estimated that two-thirds have drug dependency and abuse problems. In recent years advocates have called for intensive aftercare services to better facilitate transitions back into the community and reduce the probability of the youth reoffending. Barriers to the implementation of aftercare services include the untested nature of most current programs, as well as small sample sizes available to conduct studies. In addition, the racial disproportionality within the juvenile justice system is well documented. This study attempts to examine the effects the provisions of aftercare services had on recidivism in a particular substance abuse facility in Virginia, and the effect race played in the assignment of aftercare services. This study found that the assignment rates of Black youth and White youth to aftercare varies with Black youth receiving aftercare less frequently than Whites. However, after controlling for a number of characteristics of the youths, the difference in the assignment to aftercare does not differ significantly by race. This study also found that Black youth were more likely to be declared "severely delinquent" which appears to have systematically disqualified them from receiving aftercare services. Unfortunately, results regarding the effects of aftercare services on recidivism are inconclusive, mostly due to the small sample size. Details: Washington, DC: Georgetown University, Public Policy Institute 2008. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Master's Essay: Accessed June 19, 2014 at: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/555950/30_etd_srp27.pdf?sequence=3 Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/555950/30_etd_srp27.pdf?sequence=3 Shelf Number: 132531 Keywords: AftercareJuvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile OffendersJuvenile ReentryRacial DisparitiesRecidivism |
Author: Taylor, Liana R. Title: General Responsivity and Evidence-Based Treatment: Individual and Program Predictors of Treatment Outcomes During Adolescent Outpatient Substance Abuse Treatment Summary: Since it was first articulated, the Risk-Need-Responsivity model (RNR; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) has been extensively researched and is regarded as an empirically supported model for providing effective correctional treatment. It is comprised of three core principles: the risk principle, which provides direction for who should receive treatment; the need principle, which identifies intermediate treatment targets; and the responsivity principle, which states how treatment programs should be structured. The RNR model is purported to be relevant for all offender populations, including female offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 1999a), juvenile offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 1999b), violent offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 2000), and sexual offenders (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hogdson, 2009). Yet, the majority of RNR research has examined the risk and need principles, and the responsivity principle remains understudied. The responsivity principle includes two sub-principles: general and specific (Andrews, & Bonta, 2010). The current research explored the general responsivity principle, which states that programs should use theoretically relevant models for individual change, specifically cognitive-behavioral and cognitive-social learning models (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The following techniques are consistent with these models: "role-playing, modeling, repeated practice of alternative behaviors, cognitive restructuring to modify thoughts/emotions, skills building, or reinforcement" (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, p. 50). Despite empirical support, the RNR model has received minimal application to juveniles, and it has not been widely tested in the substance abuse treatment context. Additionally, it is not clear whether adherence to the RNR model is relevant for reducing substance use outcomes in youth. Adolescent substance abuse treatment programs were designed to address substance use among juveniles, and have been widely researched to determine their effectiveness; yet their effectiveness remains understudied among juvenile offenders. These studies include examinations of specific treatment interventions used, such as Multisystemic Therapy. Many of these interventions are considered to be "evidence-based treatment" (EBT), but there is a wide variety of repositories that classify interventions as "evidence-based" with varying criteria used to classify them. The juvenile drug treatment court model (JDTC) was specifically developed to address substance use and crime among juvenile offenders; however, findings from empirical studies have not demonstrated a strong treatment effect. To address these gaps in the literature, secondary analyses were conducted on data collected from 132 adolescent outpatient substance abuse treatment programs (AOPs) and 10 juvenile drug treatment courts nationwide. This research was an application of the general responsivity principle in the AOP and JDTC context to determine the impact of responsivity adherence on the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. The analyses also included an examination of evidence-based treatment (EBT) in both samples to determine the influence of EBT use scores on the odds of rearrests and substance use severity scores. To examine the AOP sample, multilevel models were used to examine the individual- and program-level impact of responsivity adherence and EBT use. To examine the JDTC sample, multivariate analyses were used to examine the individual-level impact of responsivity adherence and EBT use. Overall, responsivity adherence was not significantly associated with rearrests among AOP participants, nor was it significantly associated with substance use severity scores. Additionally, the odds of rearrest were significantly greater among individuals who received interventions with a higher EBT use score; though, there was no association between the average EBT use scores across programs and the odds of rearrest. There was no significant association between individual- and program-level EBT use scores and substance use severity. Among JDTC participants, an increase in responsivity adherence was associated with an increase in the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. A similar association emerged between EBT use scores and both outcomes, wherein increases in EBT use scores were significantly associated with an increase in the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. The results of the analyses suggest the need for further specification of both general responsivity adherence and "evidence-based" treatment for use in future research and theory; specifically, further elaboration of the general responsivity-adherent techniques and clear criteria for classifying interventions as "evidence-based treatment." The findings also imply that certain types of treatment interventions are more compatible with the JDTC model than other interventions. Additional analyses suggest the possibility that general responsivity adherence and evidence-based treatment may not be unique constructs. Future research may benefit through exploring evidence-based treatment as a criterion for adherence to the general responsivity principle. Details: Philadelphia: Temple University, 2014. 252p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 1, 2015 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248590.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248590.pdf Shelf Number: 135116 Keywords: Drug Abuse and AddictionDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsDrug OffendersEvidence-Based TreatmentJuvenile Drug OffendersSubstance Abuse Treatment |
Author: Molloy, Jennifer K. Title: Utah Cost of Crime. Drug Court (Juveniles): Technical Report Summary: The drug court model emerged to provide an intervention option to address the substance abuse treatment needs of offenders. As of 2009, there were 2,459 operational drug courts in the United States, of which 476 were specifically for juveniles (Huddleson & Marlowe, 2011). In general, drug courts are specialized courts that combine treatment with court supervision, using a non-adversarial model, in order to reduce offenders' substance abuse and criminal behavior (General Accounting Office (GAO), 1997). The main components of a drug court are: the use of a judge to preside over monthly status hearings, mandatory drug testing, court monitoring of individualized drug treatment, and use of immediate sanctions and incentives to ensure compliance with court demands. While eligibility requirements vary across jurisdictions, the majority of programs restrict eligibility to non-violent offenders with an identified substance abuse problem. Offenders typically participate in drug court for one to two years; those who complete court requirements generally have their charges dismissed or reduced, while those who do not complete often receive jail or prison sentences. In the juvenile drug court model the developmental needs of the adolescent, as well as negative peer influences and the family environment are taken into account when planning program requirements (BJA, 2005). In addition, confidentiality and involvement of parents and/or families in the treatment program are considerations when implementing interventions with juvenile offenders. This report details the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis of drug courts for juvenile offenders. Details: Salt Lake City: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2012. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2016 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Juvenile-Tech-Report_updateformat.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/Drug-Court-Juvenile-Tech-Report_updateformat.pdf Shelf Number: 138957 Keywords: Cost of Criminal JsuticeDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Campie, Patricia E. Title: Systematic Review of Factors That Impact Implementation Quality of Child Welfare, Public Health, and Education Programs for Adolescents: Implications for Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts Summary: To inform the development of juvenile drug treatment court (JDTC) guidelines, this study reviewed the evidence on factors that impact implementation quality and fidelity in other youth-serving systems, namely, child welfare, public health, and education programs delivered to adolescents or adolescents and their families. From a universe of more than 8,000 articles reviewed, 53 studies were included for analysis using meta-aggregation methods, as outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. The findings support previous research showing that intervention outcomes are influenced by implementation quality, readiness to complete each step of the implementation cycle (beginning with intervention selection), access to technical assistance, and contextual "fit" with the population or community. The findings align with previous research from juvenile drug treatment court implementation studies, showing the importance of improving community collaboration, reducing cross-system barriers, and using data for continuous quality improvement. New findings indicate that fidelity adherence may have unintended negative effects with vulnerable populations when compliance protocols interfere with an intervention's theory of change. Fidelity requirements may affect youth and their adult caregivers differentially and produce more positive outcomes with youth than adults, who may disengage if the program cannot be changed to fit their needs. Details: Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2016. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 11, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250483.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250483.pdf Shelf Number: 144831 Keywords: Drug OffendersDrug TreatmentDrug Treatment CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile Drug Treatment CourtsProblem-Solving CourtsTreatment Programs |
Author: Wilson, David B. Title: Developing Juvenile Drug Court Practices on Process Standards: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis Summary: Objectives. The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence on implementation barriers and facilitators, and other process issues related to juvenile drug courts, refered to herein as juvenile drug treatment courts (JDTCs), including systemwide contextual factors. This review focused on program factors directly relevant to the success of a JDC such as program fidelity, demographics of subjects, program elements, and JDC structure, as well as other potential moderators of effectiveness. Search methods. We searched the following databases and Internet resources for eligible studies: American Society of Criminology conference proceedings, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences conference proceedings, Campbell Library, Chestnut Health Systems website, CINAHL, Clinical Trials Register, Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, ERIC, Google Scholar, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, International Clinical Trials Registry, JMATE conference proceedings, National Drug Court Institute website, National Criminal Justice Reference Service, NIH RePORTER, NPC Research website, ProQuest Criminal Justice, ProQuest Dissertation & Theses: Full Text, ProQuest Education, ProQuest Family Health, ProQuest Health & Medical Complete, ProQuest Health Management, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, ProQuest Psychology, ProQuest Science, ProQuest Social Science, ProQuest Sociology, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed (drug treatment studies only), RAND Drug Policy Research Center website, Sociological Abstracts, The Drug Court Clearinghouse via American University’s Justice Programs Office website, University of Cincinnati School of Criminal Justice website, and the Urban Institute website. We examined the references found in research reviews, meta-analyses, and eligible studies. The search strategy was tailored to each database or website with the goal of identifying all relevant process and implementation studies of JDCs. The search process identified 7,261 titles and abstracts that were initially screened for potential relevance. This resulted in 572 titles and abstracts that were examined more carefully by two independent coders. This process produced 286 documents that were retrieved and for which the full text was examined to determine final eligibility, resulting in 59 eligible and coded studies. Eligibility. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence were eligible. A study must have examined a JDC and provided quantitative or qualitative evidence regarding JDC process issues. Purely theoretical discussions of JDC operations and other editorial or thought pieces were not included. A study that collected data within a JDC but did not evaluate something related to the functioning of the JDC was not included, such as a study using JDC clients to examine peer influence on drug use. Also excluded were process evaluations restricted to determining a JDC's adherence to the National Drug Court Institute and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges' "16 strategies" without an assessment of barriers or facilitators of implementing these strategies, or the value of them. Systematic review methods. Meta-aggregation was the method used for this systematic review, as outlined by the Cochrane Collaboration. This approach involved the extraction of study findings (i.e., a text summary or direct quote), the assessment of the quality of the evidence supporting the finding, and the categorization of the findings into conceptual groups. These conceptual groups were then subjected to thematic analysis using standard qualitative data analytic techniques to arrive at an interpretative summary of each grouping of findings. A credibility of evidence assessment (questionable, low, moderate, and high) was assigned to each interpretive summary statement, which reflected the highest quality assessment achieved by at least two findings that contributed to an interpretive statement. Findings. The 477 findings extracted from the 59 studies were aggregated into 14 broad conceptual categories that reflected different aspects of the juvenile drug court system. Forty interpretive statements were developed across these categories, which reflect a broad range of process issues. Most of these statements were rated as moderate (n = 10) or high (n = 21) in terms of credibility of evidence reflecting a moderately strong connection between the study finding and the quantitative or qualitative evidence. The bulk of these statements focused on family members as stakeholders in the JDC process; standards for ensuring accountability, such as the consistent application of behavioral contingencies; and various needs of JDC participants, such as mental health treatment. Conclusions. The findings demonstrate the complexities of implementing the conceptually simple JDC model. Youth and their families arrive at a juvenile drug court with a range of needs that extend beyond the youth’s substance use and involvement in other delinquent behavior, including mental health needs, a history of trauma, and learning disabilities. Families may be prepared to effectively partner with the court to facilitate a youth’s engagement in treatment services and comply with court expectations. However, families may experience obstacles to this partnership, such as parental substance abuse, or they may actively work against the JDC process. Furthermore, JDCs exist within a broader institutional and social context and rely on services available within the community and on support from various stakeholders. The quality and effectiveness of these services (e.g., substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment) will directly affect outcomes for youth and their families. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, 2016. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250441.pdf Shelf Number: 144845 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug CourtsDrug Treatment ProgramsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Harris, Brett Title: Engage, Involve, Empower: Family Engagement in Juvenile Drug Treatment Courts Summary: Research has shown that family engagement during a youth's time in the juvenile justice system helps to improve outcomes across behavioral health, education, and delinquency. To inform this technical assistance brief, which explores the application of this knowledge in the juvenile drug treatment court context, NCMHJJ conducted a nationwide survey of professionals at juvenile drug treatment courts, juvenile mental health courts, and hybrid juvenile treatment courts to learn about attitudes and practices related to family engagement. Survey results helped shape the comprehensive set of family engagement recommendations offered by the brief, as well as a self-evaluation tool. The following are also included: Key findings of the survey; Essential information on substance use and addiction among young people; and Descriptions of two juvenile drug treatment courts that demonstrate a strong commitment to family engagement. Details: Delmar, NY: National Center for Mental Health and Juvenile Justice, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncmhjj.com/resources/engage-involve-empower-family-engagement-juvenile-drug-courts/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncmhjj.com/resources/engage-involve-empower-family-engagement-juvenile-drug-courts/ Shelf Number: 141246 Keywords: FamiliesJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersJuvenile Drug TreatmentProblem-Solving Courts |
Author: Tanner-Smith, Emily E. Title: Meta-Analysis of Research on the Effectiveness of Juvenile Drug Courts Summary: Objectives. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantitatively synthesized findings from the most current evidence base of juvenile drug court effectiveness research. The objectives of the meta-analysis were to examine the effects of juvenile drug courts on general recidivism, drug recidivism, and drug use outcomes; and to explore variability in these effects across characteristics of the juvenile participants and drug courts. To address these objectives, we synthesized results from randomized and controlled quasi-experimental design studies that reported on the effects of juvenile drug courts located in the United States. Search methods. We conducted a comprehensive and systematic literature search to identify all relevant studies (published or unpublished) that met our pre-specified eligibility criteria, and the literature search is current through December 2014. We searched several electronic databases, supplemented with searches of websites, research registers, reference lists, and hand-searches of key journals and conference proceedings. Data collection and analysis. Standard systematic review practices were used for data collection and analysis. Titles, abstracts, and full-text reports were screened independently by two researchers. A third author resolved any disagreements about eligibility for inclusion. Studies eligible for inclusion were independently coded by two researchers, with a third author resolving any coding disagreements. All data extraction followed a standardized coding protocol, with data entered directly into a FileMaker Pro database. Inverse variance weighted random-effects meta-analysis models were used to estimate overall mean effect sizes, and mixed-effect meta-regression models were used to explore variability in effects across various study characteristics. Contour-enhanced funnel plots were used to assess for publication bias. Results. An extensive literature search located 46 eligible experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of juvenile drug courts. The quantitative synthesis of effect sizes provided no evidence that juvenile drug courts were more or less effective than traditional court processing in terms of general recidivism, drug recidivism, and drug use outcomes. There was no evidence of an effect on these outcomes during the juvenile drug court program period and in the post-program period. The juvenile drug court evaluations were generally of poor methodological quality. Very few studies employed random assignment, and substantial baseline differences were found between drug court and comparison groups on baseline risk and demographics. Restricting the meta-analysis to studies using the most rigorous designs (randomized and matched quasi-experimental design) provided no evidence of effectiveness on general recidivism, drug recidivism, or drug use outcomes. Finally, there was no evidence that any of the measured participant characteristics or drug court features were associated with drug court effects. Conclusions. There is no evidence that juvenile drug courts are more or less effective than traditional court processing in terms of reducing juveniles' recidivism and drug use, but there is also no evidence of harm. The quality of the body of evidence is very low, however, so we have little confidence in these null findings. Details: Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Peabody Research Institute, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 28, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250439.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/grants/250439.pdf Shelf Number: 146442 Keywords: Drug Abuse TreatmentDrug CourtsJuvenile Drug CourtsJuvenile Drug OffendersProblem-Solving Courts |