Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Recidivism Juveniles Drug Court Programs

Recidivism Juveniles Drug Court Programs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 846|Likes:
Published by Francisco Estrada

More info:

Published by: Francisco Estrada on Feb 01, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

03/02/2011

pdf

text

original

 
Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of JuvenileDrug Court Programs: 2000 – Present
 Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Juvenile Drug Court Programs: 2000 - present 
. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated. February 11, 2005
 # 
PublicationDate
 
Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Population Studied Comparison Group
1 March 31,2004
Three-Year Annual Report: Bibb Co. (Georgia) Juvenile Drug Court Program
Program description; description of participants; recidivism for 53graduates and 43 youth terminated96 youth who left program (53graduated; 43 terminated) plus 45current participantsn/a2 February2004
 Evaluation of the Kalamazoo County Juvenile DrugTreatment Court Program: October 1, 2002 –September 30, 2003: Year 6. By David J. Hartmann,Ph.D. and Paul Gregory, M.A., Western MichiganUniversity
Reviewed 51 participants in Year 6of program, making comparisons,where applicable, with participantsduring previous 5 years of programoperation.51 participants entering program inYear 6, comparing them whereapplicable with prior programparticipants.Control group established duringYear one continued to growduring each year.3 March 2003
Summary Report of Virginia’s Drug Court Programs
.Office of the Supreme Court of Virginia and VirginiaDepartment of Criminal Justice Services. AuthorNot ProvidedIndividuals in the Virginia drugcourt program between November1995 and December 2002 wereanalyzed.217 Virginians admitted to the felonydrug court programControl group matched by age,race, gender, educational level,and offense history4 May 5, 2002
From Whether to How Drug Courts Work: Retrospective Evaluation of Drug Courts in Clark County (Las Vegas) and Multnomah County (Portland),[Oregon
]. John S. Goldkamp; Michael D. White;Jennifer B. Robinson.Study focuses primarily onevaluating adult drug courts inPortland, Oregon and Las Vegas,Nevada but provides summaryreview of Clark Co. Juvenile DrugCourt.Studies all 145 juveniles entering theClark Co., Nevada juvenile drug courtin 1999N/A5 June 10, 2001
 A Preliminary Outcome Evaluation of North Dakota’s Juvenile Drug Court: Recidivism Analysis
. Kevin M.Thompson, Dept. of Sociology. North Dakota StateUniversity. [two drug courts: E. Central Jud District andNE Central Jud District]
 
Outcome evaluation of participantsin juvenile drug courts in E. CentralJud District and NE Central JudDistrict32 Participants for at least two monthsin juvenile drug courts in E. CentralJud District and NE Central JudDistrict for the period May 2000 –May 2001Juveniles referred to court from1995 - 19976 2000
 Beckham County Juvenile Drug Court: Phase II  Analysis and Evaluation.
right, David. Clymer, Bob.Beckham County Juvenile DrugCourt graduates were monitored at6,12, and 18 months aftergraduation.Beckham County Juvenile Drug Courtgraduates were monitored at 6, 12, and18 months after graduation.Beckham County’s GraduatedSanctions Program graduateswere monitored at 6, 12, and 18months after graduation.7 February1999
 Evaluation of the Orange County Juvenile Substance Abuse Treatment Court Program
Applegate, Brandon. Reuter, David. McCarthy, Bernard.Santana, Shannon.Youths processed by the DCProgram with a follow-up evaluationof 180 days100 juveniles were admitted to thedrug court program between August20, 1997 and October 31, 1998.N/A8 September 18,2003
 Evaluation of Maine’s Statewide Juvenile DrugTreatment Court Program. Fourth Year Outcome Evaluation Report.
Donald F. Anspach, Andrew S.Ferguson, Laura L. Phillps. College of Arts andSciences. University of Southern Maine
 
246 youth admitted to Maine’sJuvenile Drug Treatment Courtstudied;6 juvenile drug courts in Maine (York,Cumblerland, Androscoggin,Kennehbec, Penobscott and SagadahocCos.)Matched comparison group
 
Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of JuvenileDrug Court Programs: 2000 – Present
 Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Juvenile Drug Court Programs: 2000 - present 
. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated. February 11, 2005
 # 
PublicationDate
 
Bibliographic Information Focus of Study Population Studied Comparison Group
9 March 1998
 Evaluation of the Juvenile Drug Court DiversionProgram [New Castle County, Delaware]
Miller, Marsha. Scocas, Evelyn. O’Connell, John.N/AJuveniles admitted into the diversionprogram in Delaware weremonitored during programtreatment.144 juveniles were admitted into theDiversion Program in Summer 199790 juveniles that had beenarrested for misdemeanor drugpossession in New Castle Countyduring the first half of 1995.Equivalent criminal histories wereaccounted for.10 December2004
 Evaluation of Virginia’s Drug Treatment Court Programs (Phase I). Office of the Executive Secretary,Supreme Court of Virginia
Process and outcome study of Virginia’s adult and juvenile drugcourts371 youth admitted to Virginia juvenile drug courtsn/a
 
Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluation Reports of JuvenileDrug Court Programs: 2000 – Present
 Recidivism and Other Findings Reported in Selected Evaluations of Juvenile Drug Court Programs: 2000 - present 
. Compiled by the BJA Drug Court Clearinghouse Project.School of Public Affairs. American University. Updated. February 11, 2005
 # 
PublicationDateMethodology Recidivism ResultsRe-Arrests/drug use Convictions
Time Followed
Other Results System ImpactCost/Benefit
1 March 31,2004Reviewed programinformation regardingparticipant demographics,drug use history, recidivism,and other info.53 graduates: 14(26%) rearrested, half (7) for drug relatedoffenses43 terminated: 24rearrested (56%), 9for drug-relatedoffenses;1 graduate(1.8%)convicted of adrug relatedoffense; 5(11.6%) of thoseterminated wereconvicted of adrug relatedoffensen/a Cost savings of $ 28,200.00 for pretrialdetention costs that would have beenincurred until arraignment hearing. ($200 for 2 days x 141 participants)2 February2004Analyzed characteristics andperformance of 52 youthwho entered drug court inYear 6 of its operation,making comparisons, whereapplicable, with participantsof prior yearsFor participantswho had beenout of theprogram for atleast one year,there was adecrease in thetotal number of adjudicatedcrimes betweenthe pre-programyear (180), thein-programperiod (reducedto 69 – 62%)),and the post-program year(reduced to 54-70%)n/a Recidivism for participants following oneyear similar to recidivism of probationercontrol group – both declinedsignificantly; considered to reflect greaterlikelihood of success predicted forcontrol group3 March 2003 N/A -12.5% DC-55.6% ControlRecidivism is definedas re-arrest.N/A N/A N/A Recidivism rates for theindividual drug courts are shown.4 May 5, 2002 -tracked rearrests of  juveniles during 12 monthsfollowing their enrollment2/3 of youthrearrested for newoffense within 12months of programenrollmentN/A 12 monthsfollowingenrollment

Activity (5)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
larry tyler liked this
xoch2010 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->