데이터셋 상세
미국
Comparison of Youth Released From a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Center to Youth at a Traditional Juvenile Correctional Center in Virginia, 1998-2000
This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of the structured substance abuse treatment program at Barrett Juvenile Correction Center in Virginia by comparing the outcomes of youth admitted to Barrett with the outcomes of youth who were eligible for admittance to Barrett but were detained at one of the traditional juvenile correctional centers in Virginia. The effectiveness of Barrett's program was also assessed by comparing the outcomes of youth who were admitted to Barrett but who differed according to how many of the four phases of treatment, focused on modifying negative attitudes and behaviors, they completed. Barrett differs from the six other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia in that it provides a highly structured substance abuse treatment program to all admitted youth. Youth are considered for admission to Barrett if they are male, aged 11 to 18, have a sentence of six to 18 months, and have a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment as determined by the Reception and Diagnostic Center (RDC), which assesses youths' needs prior to sentencing. Barrett's treatment program takes a therapeutic community approach, which emphasizes altering negative attitudes and behaviors through the completion of four sequential phases of treatment. In contrast, the goal of the traditional institutions was to achieve public safety while meeting the disciplinary, medical, recreational, and treatment needs of the youth. These facilities offered some treatment programs but only on an "as needed" basis. The sample for this study consists of all 412 youth released from Barrett Juvenile Correctional Center from July 1, 1998, to June 30, 2000, and a matched sample of 406 youth released from other juvenile correctional centers in Virginia during the same period. The treatment staff at Barrett submitted information on youths' treatment progress at the time of discharge. The RDC provided demographic, criminal history, and assessment information for all youths. The Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice provided information concerning actual time served and recidivism at the juvenile level. The Virginia State Police supplied additional recidivism data, including information on adult recidivism. Parole officers also provided data on recidivism and on progress toward meeting the conditions of parole. Demographic variables included in the dataset are race of the offender and his age at commitment. Clinical variables for Barrett youth only are Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) scores, total number of categories for which the youth scored yes on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition (DSM-IV), the length of the sentence, whether the youth had a recommended or mandatory need for substance abuse treatment, and the highest phase of treatment completed. Parole officers supplied data at three, six, and 12 months after release on whether they judged youths to be currently using a substance and whether youths were meeting the conditions of parole. These conditions included curfew, counseling services, educational programs, the employment requirement, and the electronic monitoring requirement. Also included are arrests and substance-related charges as reported by the Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice, the Virginia State Police, and parole officers. A variable for total reconvictions is included as well.
데이터 정보
연관 데이터
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.
Evaluating Recidivism Among Drug Offenders in Florida's Residential and Non-Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs, 1991-1997
공공데이터포털
This study was undertaken to investigate the relationship, if any, between drug treatment and success or failure of drug-involved offenders on probation/community supervision. Further, the researchers sought to evaluate the outcomes of drug-involved offenders admitted to (1) secure residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) programs, (2) non-secure residential drug treatment programs, (3) non-residential drug treatment programs, and (4) no drug treatment programs. Data were collected from administrative records provided by the Florida Department of Corrections, specifically case history records of offenders admitted to supervision in the community from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1997. Part 1 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993 (fiscal years 1991 and 1992) and treated in a secure residential drug treatment program. Part 2 is comprised of all cases admitted to community supervision from July 1, 1991, through June 30, 1995, receiving treatment in a non-secure residential drug treatment program. Part 3 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993. Part 4 contains data on offenders admitted to non-residential drug treatment programs, whose community supervision admissions were between July 1, 1993, and June 30, 1995 (fiscal years 1993 and 1994). Part 5 contains data on cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1991, and June 30, 1993, who did not receive drug treatment of any kind. Cases admitted to community supervision between July 1, 1993, and June 20, 1995, receiving no drug treatment are contained in Part 6. Each supervision admission record contains a history of subsequent court actions that were complete through December 31, 1997. Variables for all parts include population estimates, unemployment rates, population by age-specific categories, violent and nonviolent index offenses, per capita personal income, clearance rates, split sentence flag, primary offense disposition, primary offense felony level, current commitment years supervised, supervision type, whether current offense included a drug charge, number of prior supervision terms, number of prior commitments, reasons for failure, treatment facility code, number of drug sale/traffic offenses, outcome of supervision period, and reasons for prison intake. Demographic variables include race and gender.
Evaluating the Impact of Alternative Placement Programs for Juveniles in a Southwestern State, 1983-1995: [United States]
공공데이터포털
This study addressed the question of whether alternative correctional programs were more effective than traditional training schools in reducing recidivism among juvenile offenders. Alternative programs were defined as halfway homes, group homes, foster homes, ranches, camping programs, and specialized vocational programs, while training schools were defined as secure, restrictive custody programs in institutional settings. The goal of this study was to assess the impact of alternative program placements versus training school for a 12-year period on 266 juvenile delinquents remanded to youth facilities in a southwestern state in 1983. Subjects chosen for the study were 298 youth who had been committed by a county court to a statewide juvenile corrections program between January 1, 1983, and July 1, 1983. The sample was representative of the youth commission's population of juvenile offenders in terms of age, race, and sex. All were first time commitments, and the original commitment offense for a majority of the youth was a nonviolent property crime, such as burglary or theft. From this original sample, 32 juveniles were eliminated from the study because they were not adequately exposed to either an institutional or alternative program. The final sample consisted of 266 juvenile offenders, of which 164 were placed in institutions and 102 were placed in alternative programs. Youth were not randomly assigned to programs. Juveniles with particular characteristics were automatically assigned to certain types of programs. All violent offenders were placed in institutions. The study was designed to include a lengthy follow-up period, a focus on subject by program interaction effects, and the use of survival analysis to examine the timing of recidivism as well as its incidence. Recidivism was defined as the first arrest or parole revocation that took place within the follow-up period. The follow-up period was approximately 12 years, from the parole assignment until September 1, 1995. Data were collected primarily from the administrative records of the state youth commission. The commission also obtained additional follow-up data from the state Department of Public Safety and the state Department of Corrections. Additionally, family background data were collected from each youth's parole officer in response to a survey conducted specifically for this study in September 1994. Demographic variables include commitment age, race, and sex. Psychosocial variables include family environment and IQ. Other independent variables include program placement status, delinquency risk scales, and program adjustment measures. The dependent variable is recidivism, measured as both a discrete variable indicating whether an arrest occurred and time until first arrest offense after parole.
Youth Under 18 Years Old in Adult Prisons in the United States, 1997
공공데이터포털
This survey of departments of corrections in the United States was undertaken to provide correctional staff with design, implementation, and management strategies to meet the needs of prisoners under the age of 18. The study examined what happens when individuals under age 18 are placed in adult correctional facilities, and explored the ways in which departments of corrections are attempting to deal with the growing population of youthful inmates. The following three objectives were the focus of this study: (1) to describe the number of incarcerated youths (at time of admission) being held in the nation's prison system, (2) to examine the different methods being used to house inmates under 18 years old, and (3) to explore different management approaches used with youthful inmates in terms of the size of the prison system and the area of the country in which they were located. For this study, respondents in 51 departments of corrections (50 states and the District of Columbia) were contacted by telephone regarding survey questions that were mailed prior to the phone interviews. The survey contained five questions concerning current practices for handling offenders under the age of 18 who had been placed in adult correctional institutions. Data were collected on the method used to house underaged inmates and the size of each system's population of inmates under 18 years old. Subsequently, the method and size data were combined to form categories describing four management approaches for dealing with offenders under the age of 18 in adult prisons: (1) separated/big, (2) separated/little, (3) integrated/big, and (4) integrated/little. Demographic variables include the population size and region (Northeast, South, Midwest, or West) of each jurisdiction, as well as the number and proportion of offenders under 18 years old within each state. Also present in the file is the location and name of the facility with the largest under-18 population in each jurisdiction.
Drug Testing of Juvenile Detainees to Identify High-Risk Youth in Florida, 1986-1987
공공데이터포털
This data collection examines the interrelationships among drug/alcohol use, childhood sexual or physical abuse, and encounters with the juvenile justice system. To identify high-risk individuals, youths in a Tampa juvenile detention center were given urine tests and were asked a series of questions about past sexual and/or physical abuse. Official record searches were also conducted 6, 12, and 18 months afterward to measure later encounters with the juvenile or criminal justice systems. The investigators used the youths' urine test results as the primary measure of drug use. On the basis of their review of Florida's statutes, the investigators developed outcome measures for the following offense categories: violent felonies (murder/manslaughter, robbery, sex offenses, aggravated assault), property felonies (arson, burglary, auto theft, larceny/theft, stolen property offenses, damaging property offenses), drug felonies (drug offenses), violent misdemeanors (sex offenses, nonaggravated assault), property misdemeanors (larceny/theft, stolen property offenses, damaging property offenses), drug misdemeanors (drug offenses), and public disorder misdemeanors (public disorder offenses, trespassing offenses). Other variables measured physical and sexual abuse, emotional and psychological functioning, and prior drug use. Demographic variables on sex, race, age, and education are also contained in the data. The individual is the unit of analysis.
Evaluation of Prison-Based Drug Treatment in Pennsylvania, 2000-2001
공공데이터포털
The purpose of this study was to examine multiple treatment process measures and post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in Therapeutic Community (TC) drug treatment programs or comparison groups provided by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections at five state prisons. The project attempted to examine more closely the relationships among inmate characteristics, treatment process, and treatment outcomes than previous studies in order to explore critical issues in prison-based drug treatment programming and policies. Researchers examined in-treatment measures and multiple post-release outcomes for inmates who participated in TC drug treatment programs or comparison groups at five state prisons: Graterford, Houtzdale, Cresson, Waymart, and Huntingdon. Matched comparison groups were made up of TC-eligible inmates who participated in less intensive forms of treatment (e.g., short-term drug education and outpatient treatment groups) due to a shortage of intensive treatment slots at the five institutions. Included in the treatment sample were all current TC residents as of January 1, 2000. New subjects were added to the study as they were admitted to treatment programs. Between January 1 and November 30, 2000, data on all inmates admitted to or discharged from alcohol or drug treatment programs were collected on a monthly basis. Monthly tracking was continued throughout the study to determine treatment outcomes (e.g., successful vs. unsuccessful). TC clients were asked to complete additional self-report measures that tapped psychological constructs and inmate perceptions of the treatment experience, and TC counselors were asked to complete periodic reassessments of each inmate's participation in treatment. Self-reports of treatment process and psychological functioning were gathered within 30 days after admission, again after six months, again at the end of 12 months, and again at discharge if the inmate remained in TC longer than 12 months. Counselor ratings of inmate participation in treatment were similarly gathered one month, six months, and 12 months following admission to treatment. After release, both treatment and comparison groups were tracked over time to monitor rearrest, reincarceration, drug use, and employment. Measures can be broken down into the following four categories and their sources: (1) Inmate Background Factors were collected from the Pennsylvania Additive Classification System (PACT), the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections Screening Instrument (PACSI), and the TCU (Texas Christian University) Drug Screen. (2) Institutional Indicators: Impacts Internal to the Prison Environment were collected from the Department of Corrections Misconduct Database, research and program records, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (3) Intermediate or "Proximal" Outcomes: Reductions in Risk for Drug Use and Criminal Behavior were collected from research and program records, TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms, and TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) forms. (4) Post-Release Indicators: Inmate Behavior Upon Release from Prison were collected from the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania state police records provided by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD), and the Department of Corrections inmate records system.
Survey of Youths in Custody, 1987: [United States]
공공데이터포털
This data collection, the first survey of youths confined to long-term, state-operated institutions, was undertaken to complement existing Children in Custody censuses. It also serves as a companion to the Surveys of State Prisons, allowing comparisons between adult and juvenile populations. The survey provides detailed information on the characteristics of youths held primarily in secure settings within the juvenile justice system. The data contain information on criminal histories, family situations, drug and alcohol use, and peer group activities. For youths committed for violent acts, data are available on the victims of their crimes and on weapon use.
The Impact of Juvenile Correctional Confinement on the Transition to Adulthood and Desistance from Crime, 1994-2008 [United States]
공공데이터포털
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. To assess "double transition" (the transition from confinement to community in addition to the transition from adolescence to adulthood), the study used nationally representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) to compare psychosocial maturity for three groups: approximately 162 adolescents placed in correctional confinement, 398 young adults who reported an arrest before age 18 but no juvenile correctional confinement, and 11,614 youths who reported no arrests before age 18. Three dimensions of psychosocial maturity (responsibility, temperance, and perspective) were assessed at Waves 1 (baseline) and Wave 3 (post-confinement) in models assessing the effects of confinement on the attainment (or non-attainment) of markers of successful transition to adulthood at Wave 4. Results were contextualized with data from the Survey of Youth in Residential Facilities and discussed with respect to the role of confinement in interrupting the development of psychosocial maturity in the transition to adulthood and for young adult attainment more generally. There are no data files available with this study. Only syntax files used by the researchers are provided.
Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) 2003 [United States]
공공데이터포털
The Survey of Youth in Residential Placement (SYRP) is the only national survey that gathers data directly from youth in the juvenile justice system. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) designed the survey in 2000 and 2001 to survey offender youth between the ages of 10 and 20. SYRP asks the youth about their backgrounds, offense histories and problems; the facility environment; experiences in the facility; experiences with alcohol and drugs; experiences of victimization in placement; medical needs and services received; and their expectations for the future. SYRP research provides answers to a number of questions about the characteristics and experiences of youth in custody including: Who are the youth in placement? What are their offenses? What are their family backgrounds? What are their expectations for the future? How are youth grouped in living units and programs? What activities are available in each facility? How accessible are social, emotional, and legal supports? What is the quality of the youth-staff relationships? How clear are the facility's rules? How clear is the facility's commitment to justice and due process? What methods of control and discipline do staff use? SYRP's findings are based on anonymous interviews with a nationally representative sample of youth in custody during the spring of 2003 using audio computer-assisted self-interview (ACASI) technology. SYRP is the latest addition to two ongoing data collections that OJJDP designed and implemented in the 1990s. It joins the Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement and the Juvenile Residential Facility Census to provide updated statistics on youth in custody in the juvenile justice system. SYRP bulletins, reports, and a simplified online analysis tool are available from the SYRP Project Web site.
Optimizing Juvenile Assessment Performance, United States, 2003-2019
공공데이터포털
In nearly every state and in the vast majority of juvenile justice agencies, risk assessments are incorporated into diversion, case management, supervision, and placement practices. Despite two decades of use within the juvenile justice system, little research regarding the methods of risk assessment development is discussed or translated to the field and practitioners. Many of the contemporary tools used today are implemented off-the-shelf, meaning that tools were developed with a specific set of methods, selecting and weighting items used in the prediction of a specified sample of youth. What is not known is how the various designs, methods, and circumstances of tool development impact the predictive performance when adopted by a jurisdiction. This study seeks to provide input into this dilemma. Demographic information in this study includes age, race, and sex.
목록