데이터셋 상세
미국
Evaluation of the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) Community Supervision Strategy, 2007-2009
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Hawaii Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (HOPE) community supervision strategy for substance-abusing probationers. The study involved the administration of key stakeholder surveys as part of a process evaluation of the HOPE program and the comparison of HOPE probationers with control-group probationers on two primary outcome measures: no-shows for probation appointments and positive urine tests for illicit-substance use. For Part 1 and Part 2, data were collected from administrative data sources. Missed Appointments Data (Part 1) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on a total of 1,174 probationers including 1,078 HOPE probationers, 78 comparison probationers, and 18 probationers for which study group information was not available. Specifically, for Part 1, the research team compiled data on the proportion of missed appointments in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Drug Test Results Data (Part 2) were collected from 2007 to 2009 on the same 1,174 probationers. Specifically, for Part 2, the research team compiled data on the proportion of positive urine tests in the three-month period before the study start date (baseline), in the three-month period following baseline, and in the six-month period following baseline. Stakeholder survey data were collected from September 2008 through March 2009 on 50 Integrated Community Sanctions or "Specialized Unit" probationers (Part 3), 28 probationers in treatment (Part 4), 16 probationers in jail (Part 5), 20 probation officers in the Integrated Community Sanctions Unit (Part 6), 11 public defenders (Part 7), 12 prosecutors (Part 8), 7 judges (Part 9), and 11 court staff (Part 10). Part 1 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean missed appointments scores for three periods. Part 2 contains a total of eight variables including group (high intensity or control), demographics, and mean positive urine tests for illicit-substance use scores for three periods. The Integrated Community Sanctions Probationers Survey Data (Part 3), the Probationers in Treatment Survey Data (Part 4), and the Probationers in Jail Survey Data (Part 5) each include variables about the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 3 contains 24 variables, Part 4 contains 30 variables, and Part 5 contains 30 variables. The Probation Officers Survey Data (Part 6), Public Defenders Survey Data (Part 7), Prosecutors Survey Data (Part 8), Judges Survey Data (Part 9), and Court Staff Survey Data (Part 10) include variables about workload issues and the respondent's general perceptions and opinions of the HOPE program. Part 6 contains 65 variables, Part 7 contains 45 variables, Part 8 contains 55 variables, Part 9 contains 36 variables, and Part 10 contains 36 variables.
데이터 정보
연관 데이터
Evaluation of the Implementation and Impact of the Massachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Project, 1984-1985
공공데이터포털
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an Intensive Probation Supervision (IPS) program on high-risk offenders. The IPS program was characterized by four changes in usual procedures: (1) increased supervision, (2) risk/needs assessment for substance abuse, employment, and marital/family relationships, (3) stricter enforcement of probation, and (4) a four-stage revocation procedure for technical violations. The investigators also studied whether the additional caseload of the probation officers who implemented the IPS program reduced the number of supervision contacts with non-IPS probationers under normal minimum, moderate, and maximum supervision regimens. Offenders put on IPS probation in 1985 from 13 experimental courts were compared to high-risk offenders put on regular probation in the experimental courts in 1984, and to high-risk offenders on regular probation from 13 control courts for both 1984 and 1985. Data were derived from risk assessment forms, needs/strengths assessment forms, probation supervision records, and criminal history data obtained from the state's probation central field. For each offender, a full range of data were collected on (1) offender risk characteristics at initial, four-month, ten-month, and termination assessments, (2) offender needs characteristics at the same intervals, (3) probation officer/offender contact chronologies for the entire one-year follow-up period, and (4) offender prior criminal history and recidivism during a one-year follow-up period.
Outcome Analysis Study of Drug Courts and State Mandated Drug Treatment in Los Angeles and San Joaquin Counties, California, 1998-2007
공공데이터포털
The California Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) of 2000 targeted nonviolent offenders who have a history of substance abuse and were primarily charged with misdemeanor or felony possession, excluding selling charges, for diversion from incarceration into community-based substance abuse programs. The two sites selected for this study (the El Monte Drug Court in Los Angeles County and San Joaquin County Drug Court) had SACPA programs that differed from each other and from the Drug Court model. The data for the outcome analysis were collected from administrative databases and from paper files where necessary and available. The data link an individial's criminal activity data, treatment data, and other program activity data. The outcome analysis consisted of Drug Court and Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) samples from San Joaquin and El Monte (Los Angeles) counties. Part 1, San Joaquin County Data, had a total of 725 participants and Part 2, El Monte (Los Angeles) County Data, had a total of 587 participants. The Drug Court cohort included pre- and post-SACPA Drug Court participants. The pre-SACPA Drug Court participants included all those who entered the Drug Court program July 1998 through June 1999 and included 202 participants in San Joaquin and 127 participants in El Monte. The post-SACPA Drug Court participants included all those who entered the Drug Court program in July 2002 through June 2003. This sample provided 128 participants in San Joaquin and 147 participants in El Monte who experienced the Drug Court program after any changes in eligibility and Drug Court processes due to SACPA, as well as allowing for outcome data for three years post-program entry. The SACPA samples in San Joaquin and El Monte consisted of all SACPA participants who were first time enrollees in SACPA programs between July 2002 and June 2003. These samples included 395 participants in San Joaquin and 313 participants in El Monte who experienced a reasonably well-established SACPA program while still allowing three years of outcomes post-program entry. The data for both San Joaquin county and El Monte (Los Angeles) county include the demographic variables age, race, gender, and drug of choice. Drug Court Treatment variables include dates or number of group sessions, dates or number of individual sessions, dates or number of days in residential treatment, other Drug Court service dates and types. Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act (SACPA) Treatment variables include dates or number of group sessions or episodes, dates or number of individual sessions or episodes, dates or number of urinalysis tests, dates or number of days in residential treatment, and other SACPA service dates and types. Other variables include arrest data, new court cases data, jail data, prison data, and probation data.
Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance's Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Demonstration Programs, 2002-2006
공공데이터포털
The purpose of this study was to determine whether the Lummi Nation's Community Mobilization Against Drugs (CMAD) Initiative successfully achieved its four stated goals, which were to reduce illicit drug trafficking, reduce rates of substance use disorder and addiction, prevent drug abuse and underage drinking among youth, and mobilize the community in all aspects of prevention, intervention, and suppression of alcohol and drug use, drug abuse, and drug trafficking. The study also aimed to evaluate whether the outcomes of the demonstration project had application for other tribal communities confronting similar public safety issues related to substance abuse. Qualitative information from focus group interviews was collected. Six focus groups were held with individuals representing the following populations: service providers, policy makers, adult clients and family members, youth, traditional tribal healers, and community members. In addition to the focus groups, the evaluation team conducted an interview session with two traditional providers who preferred this format. All focus groups were conducted on-site at Lummi by two trained moderators from the evaluation team. There were six different sets of questions, one for each group. Each set included 9 to 10 open-ended questions, which addressed knowledge and impact of the Community Mobilized Against Drugs (CMAD) Initiative; issues or problems with the Initiative; how the community viewed its actions; the importance and inclusion of a cultural perspective (traditional healers and others) in implementing various aspects of the CMAD Initiative; and how the Initiative had affected work and networking capabilities, policy making decisions, and/or treatment. Participants were also asked to think about what they would like CMAD to address and about their perceptions and definitions of some of the service barriers they may be experiencing (clients, community, and/or youth). All of the focus groups were openly audio taped with full knowledge and agreement of the participants.
Evaluation of Intensive Probation in Milwaukee, 1980-1981
공공데이터포털
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the results and impact of a two-year experiment in innovative probation practices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. After being classified according to the Wisconsin risk and needs assessment scale, individuals who had been sentenced to probation between January 2, 1980 and June 30, 1981 and had reported to the probation department for intake were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental and control groups. The experiment was limited to adult residents of Milwaukee County who were not already on probation, were not judged to be severe psychotic or severe sex-deviant cases, and were not assigned to jail work-release sentences of more than ten days followed by probation (Huber cases). There are three files in this data collection: the Reassessment file, the Admissions/Terminations file, and the Chronological file. Each case in the Reassessment and Admissions/Terminations files represents data on an individual probationer. There are 84 variables for 1343 cases in the Reassessment file and 218 variables for 1922 cases in the Admissions/Terminations file, both files have logical record lengths of 100 characters. Of the 1922 cases for which admissions data were collected (about 133 variables), 397 cases also have termination data available (an additional 85 variables). Cases in the Chronological file are records of probation agent contacts with probationers over the course of the study. There are 17 variables for 47,169 cases (contacts) in this file which includes information on 1781 probationers. As many as 270 contacts with a single probationer are recorded. This file has a logical record length of 80.
Validation of the Los Angeles County [California] Probation Department's Risk and Needs Assessment Instruments, 1997-1999
공공데이터포털
In 1996, the Los Angeles County Probation Department developed a set of six instruments to better assess offender risks and needs. Each instrument was intended to serve a specific purpose, with separate instruments used for adult and juvenile populations and release and placement decisions. The instruments were to be completed by probation staff. These instruments were tested in a pilot project by probation field staff in 1997. The probation department then asked RAND to re-examine the six instruments for instrument integrity, use of overrides, and relationship to long-term recidivism outcomes. The probation department's research staff had completed the instruments between April and December 1997 using available reports and case file information. RAND's involvement in the study began after all samples had been selected and instruments completed. The probation department gave RAND the data on instrument scores. Recidivism data were gathered at 6, 12, and 18 months after the instruments' administration. For juveniles data on the nature and date of arrest were available from the Juvenile Automated Information files. Data on adult re-arrests were unavailable, but the Adult Probation System provided the date, nature, and disposition of offenses referred to probation.
Validation of a Risk Assessment Instrument for Juvenile Probationers in Alameda County, California, 1996
공공데이터포털
This study sought to develop a risk assessment instrument to be used in the placement of adjudicated juveniles and determination of outcomes for juvenile probationers. The following research questions served as a guide in developing the risk assessment instrument: (1) Does the instrument measure what it purports to measure? (2) Do similar cases receive similar recommendations for placement services? (3) Is the instrument fair to dissimilar groups? (4) Is the instrument useful to practitioners? and (5) Will the instrument be simple to implement? The goal of the new risk assessment instrument was to address the relative risk of recidivism without taking into account the severity of the current offense. In order to develop a new risk assessment instrument, researchers adapted a pre-existing instrument that had been used and validated with juvenile probationers in California. The new instrument was used to evaluate youths for three measures of recidivism: intake actions, petitions filed, and petitions sustained through one year after the placement decisions were made. The sample of youths was comprised of those who in 1996 had received either a field supervision or a placement order as a disposition. The instrument measured age at first finding, prior criminal behavior, institutional commitments or placement of 30 consecutive days or more, drug/chemical use, alcohol use, parental skills, school disciplinary problems, and peer relationships.
A Sentencing Postscript: Felony Probationers Under Supervision in the Community, 1983
공공데이터포털
This study provides an overview of how the supervision of a class of felony probationers operates in a jurisdiction, and gives a baseline against which the impact of changes to probationary supervision can be measured. The objectives of this study were to describe the demographic characteristics of probationers, the nature and level of supervision that probationers receive, the extent and types of specified conditions imposed on probationers, the degree of probationer compliance with these specified conditions, the extent to which probationers are arrested and/or subjected to probationary disciplinary hearings while under supervision, and the exit status of probationers from community supervision.
Cross-Site Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Programs, United States, 2011-2016
공공데이터포털
The cross-site evaluation of the Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) was a seven-site study designed to 1) describe the implementation and sustainability of each AORDP project through a process evaluation, 2) determine the per capita program costs of each AORDP project through a cost study, and 3) determine the effectiveness of the programs through a multicomponent outcome study. The seven evaluation sites were located in California, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. The objectives of the outcome evaluation were to determine the effects of program participation on recidivism and other outcomes and assess whether program participation increased engagement in services, including substance abuse treatment and mental health services. The outcome evaluation consisted of two components: 1. Cross-site prospective study designed to collect longitudinal survey data with a sample of program participants and appropriate comparison or control subjects to assess the impact of the SCA funding on access to services and reentry outcomes, such as substance use, employment, housing, and health. 2. Site-specific recidivism analyses using administrative data to assess the impact of AORDP program participation on recidivism outcomes for all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site
Process Evaluation of the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program at the South Idaho Correctional Institution, 1999-2000
공공데이터포털
This study is a process evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program at the South Idaho Correctional Institution (SICI), addressing the following research questions: (1) Did the SICI RSAT program as delivered conform with its stated goals and objectives? (2) Did the program result in reduced recidivism, abstinence from drug and alcohol use, and reduced costs of incarceration? (3) Did the referral process identify the targeted population? (4) Would the SICI RSAT data, management, staffing, and design be suitably established within two years to allow for a full outcome evaluation? (5) Were there communication issues among the IDOC, Parole Commission, and contract providers that might interfere with program implementation and delivery? and (6) Were there any cooperative remedies that had been, or might be developed to address implementation and delivery difficulties? Researchers conducted field observations (Part 1, Observational Data) of program delivery by program leaders using both the Cognitive Change Program Module and the Minnesota Model-Based Chemical Dependency Treatment Modules in each of the three phases of the therapeutic community environment. Researchers administered questionnaires to inmates (Part 2, Inmate Interview Data) and staff (Part 3, Staff Interview Data) regarding their perceptions of program operations. Variables for Part 1 include the date and time of observation, nature of observation, clarity, organization, and substance of program delivery, the program leader's involvement and the quality of that involvement with inmates, how prepared the program leader was, and the general therapeutic atmosphere of the program. Demographic variables for Part 2 include the race, age, ethnicity, and level of education of each inmate. Other variables include use of alcohol and illegal drugs prior to incarceration, inmates' perceptions of the treatment personnel, their levels of involvement with the group meetings and cognitive self-change groups, the atmosphere of therapy, ratings of communication and delivery of treatment, quality of service, and the strengths and weaknesses of the RSAT program. Variables for Part 3 include staff's perceptions of the RSAT program and whether they felt the program content and delivery were well organized and easy to understand, perceptions of the program leader's preparation and involvement, perceptions of communication and consistency issues, the quality of service, and the strengths and weaknesses of the RSAT program.
Assessment of a Single-Purpose Substance Abuse Facility for Committed Juvenile Offenders in Virginia, 1995-1997
공공데이터포털
The objective of this data collection was to provide a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of treatment offered at the Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center, a substance abuse treatment facility in Virginia for convicted male offenders that began operation in late 1993. The center uses a holistic approach in the treatment of youth to identify the triggers for substance abuse and to investigate the relationship between substance abuse and delinquent behavior. For the facility assessment, various types of data from the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice were gathered. Baseline data on each juvenile were obtained from the department's Reception and Diagnostic Center and consisted of demographic information and I.Q. scores, criminal history, and substance abuse history. Demographic variables include the youth's race, last grade placement, and with whom the youth lived. Youths' scores on standardized tests were also compiled, including SASSI, verbal I.Q., performance I.Q., and full-scale I.Q. scores. Criminal histories covered whether the committing offense was a felony or misdemeanor, the type of committing offense, the total number of committing offenses, whether a prior offense was a felony or a misdemeanor, the type of prior offense, the total number of prior offenses, the age at first criminal adjudication, age at commitment, and degree of delinquency. Alcohol and drug use data focused on the age at which alcohol was first used, number of times alcohol was used in the past year, age at which marijuana was first used, number of times marijuana was used in the past month, and whether the youth ever used cocaine, crack, inhalants, speed, depressants, hallucinogens, or other drugs. Another source of information was the youths' parole officers, who provided data on youths' criminal offending status and substance abuse at three, six, and twelve months after release from the center. Data obtained from parole officers assessing youths' improvement after leaving the center include whether they were rearrested, the type of offense if rearrested, the total number of offenses rearrested for, disposition, most serious offense overall, and youths' overall drug use.
목록