 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bibliography
Examples of Probation ProgramsLeonardson, Gary, Mountain Plains Research, Prepared for Department of Correction, Attorney General's Office, Report on Chemical Dependency Programs, 1995. (South Dakota)
This report contains multiple one-shot evaluations of chemical dependency programs in South Dakota. Clients' and counselors' evaluations were provided, as well as follow-up of clients using multiple indicators such as drug testing and self-reported arrest, drinking, and probation violations.
Children and Family Services Department, An Outcome Evaluation of Project Rebound, 1995. (Minnesota)
This evaluation involved follow-up of project clients at three and six months to assess the project's effectiveness on several outcome measures. Measures included instances of probation violations and convictions for new offenses, drug use and completion of drug programs, as well as assessments on child treatment and maintenance of children in the home.
Criminal Justice Council of San Mateo County, Evaluation of the Biochemical Restoration Program for Multiple DUI Offenders, 1995. (California)
In this evaluation, follow-up measures such as numbers of charges, bench warrants, and probation violations were compared for program participants and a control group of individuals found eligible for the program, but who were unable to get to the site or refused to participate.
University of Pennsylvania, Center for Studies of Addiction, School-Based Probation in Pennsylvania: Final Report, 1997. (Pennsylvania)
This evaluation design involved random ex-post-facto selection of program participants for comparison with a matched group of non-school-based probationers. Follow-up comparisons were made on re-arrests, probation violations, subsequent placements, and time in the community.
Office of Research and Statistics, Colorado Department of Public Safety, Evaluation of the Reasoning and Rehabilitation Cognitive Skills Development Program as Implemented in Juvenile ISP in Colorado, 1996. (Colorado)
In this evaluation, random assignment of 20 clients each was made to experimental and control groups. Follow-up was completed on client recidivism and compared between groups.
Back to Evaluations Identified by Type of Program
Main Page | About the Center | Evaluation and Performance Measurement Resources | Program Areas
BJA Required Performance Measures | Contact Us | Site Map | BJA Home
