Explain The Strengths And Limitations Of Group Design

researchers had conducted and gaining a statistical analysis of the researches, a meta-analysis is often one of the best tools to ensure a positive impact on recidivism “meta-analysis is the principal source of information for "effective principles” (Gendreau, 1996, p. 120). Often times these intervention programs are intensive and behavioral based, which are vital to the program. Behavioral Programs, should target the criminogenic needs of the offender, which has better results when it is paired with the offender’s risk level.

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

The way the criminal justice system should handle crimes has always been a debated subject. For over the last forty years, ever since the war on drugs, there are more policies made to be “tough on crime”. From then, correctional systems have grown and as people are doing more crimes, there are plenty of punishments for them. In the mid 1970’s, rehabilitation was the main concern for the criminal justice system. It was common that when someone was convicted of a crime, they would be sentenced to prison but there would also be diagnosed treatments to help them as well. Most likely, they would have committed a crime due to psychological problems. When they receive treatment in prison, they can be healed and would not go back to their wrong lifestyle they had lived before. As years have gone by, people thought that it was better to take a more punitive stance in the criminal justice system. As a result of the turnaround of this more punitive criminal justice system, the United States now has more than 2 million people in prisons or jails--the equivalent of one in every 142 U.S. residents--and another four to five million people on probation or parole. The U.S. has a higher percentage of the

In a fight to reduce overcrowding, improve public health and public safety, and reduce the costs of criminal justice and corrections, federal, state and local leaders are constantly looking for alternatives to incarceration. A number of strategies have been put in place to save public funds and improve public health by keeping low-risk, non-violent, possibly drug-involved offenders out of prison or jail while still holding them accountable and securing the safety of our comminutes. These programs have been put in place to help those who don’t necessarily need to be in jail, get their priorities straight while also holding them accountable for their actions. They have been put in place to help reduce incarceration rates, but also help those who may have mental health issues or substance abuse issues that have caused them to make bad decisions (Treatment Court Divisions).

The current study will utilize a quasi-experimental group design to compare recidivism rates of opioid offenders in drug courts compared to offenders on probation. Since, random assignment to control and experimental groups are not feasible, the two groups will be matched on various demographic characteristics as well as the current choice of drug. The data will be collected on all participants that have entered the Brooklyn Treatment Court, NY (BTC) in the second judicial district, and a comparison group of offenders on traditional probation.

While evaluating the drug court programs several types of dependencies were discovered. One dependency was created because of multiple measures of criminal behavior during the same time of the follow-ups. Each evaluation had to utilize a particular research sample so that statistical independence could be maintained. An odds-ratio effect size was used because this type of format is most appropriate effect size for the outcomes referring to recidivism. The coding of the effect size was done in such a way that positive effect sizes indicated the treatment group had more of a favorable outcome than the comparison group. The researchers coded an effect size that quantified each court's effects on recidivism. There was also the coding of drug court programs, research methodology, and samples (Mitchell et al., 2012). The results of the study showed that participants in the drug court programs have lower recidivism rate than nonparticipants. These rates show to be less following their removal from the drug court programs. These findings express the need for continuous funding, development, and operation of drug court programs as they prove a reduction in recidivism. However, when it comes to drug courts in the juvenile judicial system, the finding are considerably less than adult drug

Also, we need data and additional detailed information on the participants who were not satisfied. As stated in the article, “What Works in Reducing Recidivism”, the “Treatment Principle”, states “the most effective programs are behavioral in nature” (Latessa, Lowenkamp, p523, University of St. Thomas Law Journal). The report provided by staff does not clearly identify how many participants in each program and which program had the lower success rate and least

Creating this program and seeing that the offenders followed through with the treatment process was the primary goal. In order to collect the necessary data, counselors needed to interview each participate. This procedure is what enabled them to understand better and further assist participants with treatment and remaining on the correct path. The interview process took place 12 months after offenders were released from prison. A research team from the university of

Correctional treatment programs have long been thought not to be effective in lowering the recidivism among criminals; Martinson (1979). Researchers have done countless studies and surveys only to find out that many of these studies and programs work and nearly the same number of programs do not work, depending on what component was or was not a part of the studies. Knowing that all programs does not work for all criminals is a no brainer, however, finding a good mixture of what does work and for what percentage of criminals is a beginning to duplicate that program with a few minor adjustments in the programs.

Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a research interview on the people who have previously undergone through a recidivism process. However, in the United States of America, there are millions of individuals who have had previously undergone this process (Schneider, 2008). Therefore, it is impossible to interview this great number of population, and thus the researcher had to choose a sample from the population, which will lead to generalized results. In addition, the research sample size should be of a significant size. Nevertheless, the identification of variables is very essential for this

I am responsible for reviewing and interpreting quasi-experimental outcome evaluation results to assess the effectiveness of state funded programs administered through the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act (JJCPA). I use Excel to recalculate the results for program participants and reference groups to determine the accuracy of information provided in the counties’ progress reports. After validating program results, the data is exported from Access and then import into SPSS. Using SPSS, new variables are created and some variables for data analysis. In addition to cleaning and formatting data, paired samples T-tests are ran to compare measures by group differences across 56 counties.

Offenders would be given a survey using the Likert scale (1-Poor, 2- Below Average, 3- Average, 4-Above average, and 5- Excellent) upon entering the program. Anything rated as a 3 or higher will be considered satisfactory. The survey is part of the intake and discharge process therefore mandatory to complete. This will guarantee a 100% participation rate. The offender would not be informed of the survey being part of an experiment to discourage any biases. The purpose of this survey is to gather offender’s experiences with staff, to see how offenders feel about the staff, what they think about staff attitudes, if they feel staff have an impact on their success in the program, and what do they think about the program.

In order to determine whether or not focusing on re-entry services helps reduce overcrowding in prisons a longitudinal outcome evaluation study will be used. The study will be completely voluntary and consent will be required at the beginning of the study. Participants are not required to complete the study; however, a monetary reward will be given for successful completion. Other than the monetary reward, no other incentives will be offered to participants. The focus will be on two prisons, one prison will have already implemented the re-entry services policy and the other will not. Our sample will consist of inmates who have served five to twenty years in prison and will soon be released. The ideal sample would consist of at least 50 inmates from each facility. Various demographic information will be collected such as, age, race, gender, highest level of education, and home city at time of arrest. Other basic information that will be gathered will include, whether or not they had familial support while incarcerated, and whether or not they have familial support upon release.

Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do

The National Institute Justice states that juvenile crime rates have fallen over 55% than its peak in 1994, but it still a cause for public concern. Actual reasons for this decline are elusive, but there is debate over the facilitation of jail time, or long-term therapy sessions as punishment for the juveniles for their crimes. According to an executive summary by Alex Piquiero and Laurence Steinberg, “Rehabilitation Versus Incarceration of Juvenile Offenders: Public Preferences in Four Models for Change States”, the public has expressed more favor for rehabilitation efforts. Piquiero and Steinberg, who are professors in criminal justice and psychology, surveyed a random sample with questions that pertained to