The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts

IF 1.5 4区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evaluation and Program Planning Pub Date : 2024-10-05 DOI:10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102510
{"title":"The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2024.102510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Formal criminogenic risk tools can be an important control in assessing racial inequities in access to treatment courts and in evaluating both proximal and distal outcomes from those programs. To achieve this potential, however, it is important that risk tools themselves operate in a racially neutral fashion and that they operate consistently over the period assessed. Tools that are not properly calibrated by race and changes in the tools used over the life of a program are therefore significant evaluation concerns. Our paper is the first to assess the adequacy of an important risk-needs instrument, the LSI-R, across racial groups in a drug treatment court setting. The main contribution of the current study is not as a test of that instrument, which has been widely studied in other settings. Rather, because two different criminogenic risk tools were used over the study time period, we took this opportunity to explore the use of a readily constructible “proxy” measure of risk to support analysis of risk and race interactions over the life of the program.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48046,"journal":{"name":"Evaluation and Program Planning","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evaluation and Program Planning","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718924001125","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Formal criminogenic risk tools can be an important control in assessing racial inequities in access to treatment courts and in evaluating both proximal and distal outcomes from those programs. To achieve this potential, however, it is important that risk tools themselves operate in a racially neutral fashion and that they operate consistently over the period assessed. Tools that are not properly calibrated by race and changes in the tools used over the life of a program are therefore significant evaluation concerns. Our paper is the first to assess the adequacy of an important risk-needs instrument, the LSI-R, across racial groups in a drug treatment court setting. The main contribution of the current study is not as a test of that instrument, which has been widely studied in other settings. Rather, because two different criminogenic risk tools were used over the study time period, we took this opportunity to explore the use of a readily constructible “proxy” measure of risk to support analysis of risk and race interactions over the life of the program.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
长期运作的戒毒法庭在评估风险、种族和累犯方面存在的问题(以及可能的解决方案
正式的犯罪风险工具可以作为一种重要的控制手段,用于评估进入治疗法庭的种族不平等情况,以及评估这些项目的近端和远端结果。然而,要实现这一潜力,风险工具本身必须以种族中立的方式运作,并且在评估期间持续运作。因此,未按种族进行适当校准的工具,以及在计划实施期间所使用工具的变化,都是重要的评估问题。我们的论文首次评估了一种重要的风险需求工具--LSI-R---在戒毒治疗法庭环境下在不同种族群体中的适用性。本研究的主要贡献不在于对该工具进行测试,因为该工具已在其他环境中得到广泛研究。相反,由于在研究期间使用了两种不同的犯罪风险工具,我们借此机会探讨了如何使用一种易于构建的风险 "替代 "测量方法,以支持对项目实施期间风险与种族之间的相互作用进行分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evaluation and Program Planning
Evaluation and Program Planning SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
112
期刊介绍: Evaluation and Program Planning is based on the principle that the techniques and methods of evaluation and planning transcend the boundaries of specific fields and that relevant contributions to these areas come from people representing many different positions, intellectual traditions, and interests. In order to further the development of evaluation and planning, we publish articles from the private and public sectors in a wide range of areas: organizational development and behavior, training, planning, human resource development, health and mental, social services, mental retardation, corrections, substance abuse, and education.
期刊最新文献
Anticipatory evaluation. How to incorporate an anticipatory technique into a theory-driven evaluation process. Results of application in a case study. What evaluation criteria are used in policy evaluation research: A cross-field literature review A program evaluation of the new choices workforce development program: An appreciative inquiry approach The Problems (and possible solutions) of assessing risk, race and recidivism in long operating drug treatment courts A theoretical framework to companies value creation through a systematic review of intangibles’ management
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1