A Systematic Review of Literature Relating to Problem-Solving Youth Courts

Madell, Dominic; Thom, Katey; McKenna, Brian

doi:10.1080/13218719.2012.699790

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast, the meta-review (or what is also referred to as an 'integrated review' in the health literature (Whittemore 2005;Whittemore and Knafl 2005)) conducted in this analysis relies on a narrative form of synthesis, similar to the review methodology adopted by Madell, Thom and McKenna (2012) in assessing studies of youth problem-solving courts and by Weed (2009) in examining the journeys reviewers have taken in the field of sports tourism. In essence, it is 'a review of reviews' that involves an examination of the methodologies used in the evaluations and an 'interrogation of the explicit and implicit decisions made by reviewers' about what are the aims and objectives of Indigenous sentencing courts (Weed 2009:615-6).…”

Section: Meta-reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nothing Works? A Meta-Review of Indigenous Sentencing Court Evaluations

Marchetti

2017

Current Issues in Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous-focused criminal justice programs are usually evaluated and studied without an adherence to, or acknowledgement of, Indigenous epistemologies, axiologies and ontologies. Indeed, many of the evaluations conducted of Australian Indigenous sentencing courts have relied on quantitative analyses of reoffending, finding little or no impact on recidivism, despite there being some evidence, derived mainly from qualitative analyses, that they have had an impact on strengthening informal social controls within Indigenous communities. This article uses published evaluations and impact studies of Indigenous sentencing courts as a case study to gain a better understanding of how these courts have been evaluated and researched, and how the methodological approaches used to study the courts may not properly capture the Indigenous-focused and community-building aims and goals of the programs. Employing a meta-review approach, the article examines why research that evaluates Indigenous-focused criminal justice programs should rethink how evaluations are framed and conducted when trying to determine 'what works'. 3 Cunneen and Rowe (2014) describe a Western positivist methodological approach as one that uses a scientific paradigm to separate, quantify, measure and statistically analyse individualised factors, while viewing these factors and the analysis as unrelated to the 'social, economic, cultural and political set of relations' within which they are embedded (2014:52). When researching questions related to the over-representation of Indigenous peoples within the criminal justice system, a Western positivist methodology also separates individualised factors from 'the historical experience of colonisation and dispossession ' (2014:52).

show abstract

Section: Meta-reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nothing Works? A Meta-Review of Indigenous Sentencing Court Evaluations

Marchetti

2017

Current Issues in Criminal Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overall, adult drug courts are more effective at reducing recidivism than juvenile drug courts. Meta-analytic studies have demonstrated that effect sizes for adult drug courts ranged from 8% to 14% (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Latimer, Morton-Bourgon, & Chrétien, 2006; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2005; Shaffer, 2010; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006), whereas juvenile drug courts were only able to reduce drug-related recidivism by less than 8% on average (Aos et al, 2006; Latimer et al, 2006; Madell, Thom, & McKenna, 2013; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012; Shaffer, 2006; Stein, Homan, & Deberard, 2015; Wilson et al, 2006). Many researchers have argued that the reason adult drug courts perform better than juvenile drug courts is the variation in the level of implementation fidelity (Carey et al, 2008; Lutze & van Wormer, 2014; Taylor, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

Mei

Wormer

et al. 2019

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug courts aim to significantly address drug abuse and drug-related criminality. However, the effectiveness of drug courts varies from court to court. The variation of success demands insights regarding what is going on inside the “black box” of drug court practices. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate to what extent drug courts are operated in adherence with guiding principles and strategies. Using a national sample and validated measures, the current article examines the “black boxes” of adult and juvenile drug courts across the country. We found that, in general, adult drug courts face less model adherence challenges in comparison with juvenile courts, which may, in part, explain why adult drug courts perform better than juvenile drug courts overall.

show abstract

“…While collaboration has been conceptualized as the key to implementing successful drug courts, its significant role as the driving force of model adherence has not received much attention from criminal justice practitioners or scholars. Meanwhile, although the scientific evidence is robust in showing how adult drug courts work to reduce recidivism (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2006; Latimer, Morton-Bourgon, & Chrétien, 2006; Lowenkamp, Holsinger, & Latessa, 2005; Shaffer, 2010; Wilson, Mitchel, & MacKenzie, 2006), juvenile drug courts are shown to be less effective in reducing recidivism (Aos et al, 2006; Latimer et al, 2006; Madell, Thom, & McKenna, 2013; Mitchell, Wilson, Eggers, & MacKenzie, 2012; Shaffer, 2006; Stein, Deberard, & Homan, 2015; Wilson et al, 2006). Researchers argue the variation of success between and within drug courts could be attributed to the variation of drug court model adherence (Carey, Finigan, & Pukstas, 2008; Marlowe, Festinger, Lee, Dugosh, & Benasutti, 2006; Marlowe et al, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaboration: A Mechanism of Drug Court Model Adherence

Mei

Wormer

et al. 2019

Journal of Drug Issues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drug courts solve problems, namely, reducing drug use and recidivism. The current research attempts to answer the question of how to ensure program fidelity and therefore optimize the efficacy of drug courts. Justice professionals and scholars have recognized that there are multiple internal and external threats that could undermine the drug court operation. At this point, the mechanism(s) by which threaten factors affect drug court program fidelity has been neither theoretically modeled nor empirically tested. In the present study, using a national sample and the Structural Regression Analysis (SRA), we found collaboration and judicial decision making are the most important factors for maintaining drug court program fidelity. This is because collaboration and judicial decision making can mediate the threats and challenges from many quarters, including the lack of information sharing and evaluation, treatment, operational support, and community and political support.

show abstract

A Systematic Review of Literature Relating to Problem-Solving Youth Courts

Cited by 4 publications

References 33 publications

Nothing Works? A Meta-Review of Indigenous Sentencing Court Evaluations

Nothing Works? A Meta-Review of Indigenous Sentencing Court Evaluations

Validating Drug Court Collaboration Instrument: Differences in Model Adherence Between Adult and Juvenile Drug Courts

Collaboration: A Mechanism of Drug Court Model Adherence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About