Practice: Juvenile Drug Courts - Crime. Solutions. gov. Meta- Analysis Snapshot/tr> Literature Coverage Dates. Number of Studies. Number of Study Participants. Meta- Analysis 1. Legislation that created and funded Utah’s drug courts was enacted in. Justice Programs, and Bureau of Justice Assistance. Adolescent Drug Courts follow. Find A Drug Court; What are Drug Courts? The Verdict Is In; Drugs and Crime in America; Setting the Record Straight. When compared to eight other programs, Drug Courts quadrupled the length of abstinence from methamphetamine. An underground world consumes thousands of Utahns who are constantly driven by getting their next high, but there is a place of hope for these addicts. It's a place in our judicial system where they'll get more than a prison. Drug crimes in Utah such as marijuana possession and paraphernalia. Utah has a set up a drug court system designed to supervise and treat individuals with drug addictions and help reduce the rate of recidivism. Meta- Analysis 2. Meta- Analysis 3. Meta- Analysis 4. Meta- Analysis 1. Latimer, Morton- Bourgon, and Chr. To be included in the analysis, studies needed to have (1) examined the effectiveness of a juvenile drug court, (2) used a control group that did not experience the juvenile drug court, (3) included sufficient statistical information to establish an effect size, and (4) measured the impact of the juvenile drug court on recidivism rates. Adult Drug Court; Citizen Foster Care Review Board. Adult Drug Court / Eligibility & Processes Eligibility & Processes Who is Eligible for Drug Court? Individuals eligible for Drug Court include. Participants in drug court programs? This document describes the principles and methods of screening and assessment of adult drug court. Home » Utah Treatment Programs. The Utah Drug Court System works with individuals who have been convicted of drug related crimes. Age, length of the program, follow up period, and methodological versus random assignment were identified as moderating variables in the analysis. The search resulted in the inclusion of seven studies of seven individual drug court programs. The studies included published and unpublished evaluations. The individual program studies included youth offenders who had successfully completed a drug treatment court program. No information was provided on the gender, racial/ethnic breakdown of the studies’ samples, or program location. The phi coefficient (Pearson’s r product moment correlation applied to dichotomous data) was used as the effect size estimate. Once the effect size estimate from each program was calculated for recidivism, the overall mean effect size estimate, along with the corresponding confidence intervals, and a weight effect size estimate were calculated. Meta- Analysis 2. Mitchell and colleagues (2. The search process resulted in the inclusion of 1. Of those, 3. 4 examined juvenile drug courts. Only 9 percent of the studies were published (as journal or book chapters), while the other 9. The 3. 4 studies included 6,8. Almost all of the juvenile drug court evaluations had study participants that were predominantly male. Ninety- four percent of the juvenile drug court studies included mostly males (6. A little over half (5. Nearly half (4. 7 percent) of the studies evaluated juvenile drug court programs that included a four- phase process. For each evaluation contrast, an effect size was calculated. Effect sizes were calculated for three outcomes: (1) general recidivism; (2) drug related recidivism; and (3) drug use.
The authors utilized the odds ratio effect size, as this type of effect size is most appropriate for dichotomous recidivism. The inverse variance weight was calculated for each program effect and those weights were used to compute the average. A random effects model was used for the analysis. In order to assess the robustness of the findings against the methodological quality of the studies included in the meta- analysis, the 1. Meta- Analysis 3. Shaffer (2. 00. 6) sought to identify characteristics of effective juvenile drug courts. The author used meta- analytic techniques to investigate the relationship between six structural and five process dimensions of juvenile drug court effectiveness. The six structural dimensions included (1) target population, (2) leverage, (3) service delivery, (4) staff, (5) funding, and (6) quality assurance. The five process dimensions included (1) assessment, (2) philosophy, (3) treatment, (4) predictability, and (5) intensity. The objective was to merge survey data with existing study data to determine the relative influence of each dimension listed above. Multiple sources were searched to locate both published and unpublished studies related to drug court effectiveness through January 2. The inclusion criteria required that studies (1) evaluated a drug court program using an experimental or quasi- experimental design, (2) included a distinct comparison group, (3) used at least one measure of criminal behavior as an outcome measure, (4) had a minimum 6- month follow- up period, and (5) were based in the USA. Applying these criteria resulted in 1. However, in several cases, multiple publications reported on the same drug court. The search procedures resulted in the identification of 2. Most of the studies collected were technical reports (6. No information was provided on the age, gender, or racial/ethnic breakdown of the studies’ samples, or on the program location. The effect size was calculated for each program using the phi coefficient. The phi coefficient was selected because of its equivalence to the Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient, ease of interpretation, and ability to be converted into the binomial effect size display. After calculating the effect size for each program, a weighted mean Pearson coefficient was estimated to assess the mean effect size associated with drug courts. The inverse variance weight was calculated for each program effect and those weights were used to compute the average. The fixed effects model was used for the analysis. Meta- Analysis 4. Drake (2. 01. 2) conducted a meta- analysis to review the effectiveness of various types of chemical dependency treatment in the adult and juvenile justice systems to determine whether the programs reduce crime and substance abuse. For evaluation of juvenile drug court studies, four primary methods were used to locate studies: (1) bibliographies of systematic and narrative reviews in various topic areas were consulted; (2) citations from the individual studies were examined; (3) independent searches of research databases were conducted; and (4) authors of primary research were contacted. Studies were included if they had a comparison group (random or non- random assignment), had enough information to calculate an effect size, and had a standardized measure of the primary outcome of interest (i. The search process resulted in the inclusion of 1. The 1. 5 individual studies represented 1. No information was provided on the number or demographics of the participants, nor was information provided on the distribution of published and unpublished studies. The standardized mean difference effect size was calculated for each program effect. Once the effect sizes were calculated, the individual measures were summed to produce a weight average effect size for the program area (in this instance, adult drug courts). Adjustments were made to the effect sizes for small sample sizes, evaluations of “non- real world” programs, and for the quality of the research design (the quality of each study was rated using the University of Maryland’s six- point scale; only studies that received a rating of . Random effects inverse variance weights were used to calculate the weighted average effect size.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
January 2017
Categories |