Research Analysis: ‘Adult Drug Courts’

The world-wide duty purpose (GAO) did the view on Adult Drug Courts. GAO is an agency, operating independently and without any partisan agenda, that works for the U.S. Congress. Its usage is to investigate how the federal presidency appropriates prevalent revenue to aid Congress in deciding all over approval of the calculate parcelling of the federal administration and discover the accountability of the federal government for sancti integrityd budget allocation.The dose coquette of virtue syllabuss that started in the latter part of the 1980s (GAO 1) even up one area of budget allocation by the federal government. The blueprint of the medicine homage schedules is to prevent recidivism of inmates minglight-emitting diode in medicine-related crimes. This served as a solution to the exploding prison population and escalating tolls to the criminal justice system.The federal government commenced awards or grants to these curriculums in 1994 through the Viol ent Crime run across and Law Enforcement Act.By September of 2004, there were already 1,200 political programs established in the different states and calciferol more programs are in the cookery stage. (GAO 1) GAO conducted the analyze to determine the achievement of the purpose of the federal awards by considering the outcomes of dose romance programs as ruled by the appropriations authorization law for the Department of Justice (GAO 2).The independent and non-partisan credit of GAO as swell up as conducting the ratings ground on a legal mandate contributed to the objectivity of the results.What was the subject about?The information is a systematic rating of foregoing queryes done on medicate tourist tourist homage programs. GAO initially selected 117 studies assessing dose judiciary programs conducted betwixt May 1997 and January 2004 that make reports on recidivism, change state of drug use, and outcomes of program completion (GAO 2). Of this material body, GAO selected 27 studies that compared a convention undergoing the drug greet program and a sort out non part of any drug coquette program.Five of the 27 studies were examines with an experimental and control groups with members designate at random. The 27 studies covered 39 drug lawcourt programs for adults. (GAO 9-10) The aim of the GAO evaluation was to obtain systematically teaching on drug court programs, specialally the components of drug court programs, the outcomes of these programs, and costs of these programs.The evaluation alike conducted a cost-benefit outline of 8 studies providing information on costs and benefits. Four of the 8 studies even enabled the determination of net benefits. (GAO 9-10)To make up the evaluation of studies on drug court programs, GAO in any case interviewed key respondents from three government agencies with direct involvement in the capital punishment of the drug court programs, including the Department of Justice, internal Institute on Drug Abuse, and Office of National Drug Control form _or_ system of government (GAO 3).The combined evaluations and interviews animationed conclusions base on double perspectives of the effectiveness of drug court programs to aid legislative decision-making.What is the time-period of the study?The evaluation commenced in October 2003 and concluded in February 2005 in compliance with auditing standards (GAO 3). Although the question process gnarled a period of 1 class and 4 months, the study is a cross-section(a) study because the focus is results over a given period, detailally studies done in the midst of May 1997 and January 2004 and interviews over the operations of drug court programs during the same period.The evaluation did non intend to trace developments in drug court programs or study specific man-to-mans involved in drug court programs over an extended period. Doing cross-sectional study accepts the comparative and collative evaluation of studie s on drug court programs. However, this also creates the bound of the results by not covering developmental issues or problems emerging from the programs.What is the research design of the study ( homework)?The research design apply in the evaluative study is the mixed manners research that integ judge both denary and qualitative aspects to acquire better results when compared to victimisation only one aspect or the otherwise. The mixed method research requires the derivation of both quantitative and qualitative selective information and integrative outline of both types of info.The study by GAO collect quantitative info by victimization statistical analysis of the data derived from the 27 studies. The presentation of results was through comparative and additive tables. It also derived qualitative data based on the results of the 27 studies and interviews with three government agencies (GAO 3) directly involved in the executing of the programs. The presentation of resul ts was through tables and text discussions.The planning of the evaluative study by GAO involved secondary research and interviews as data collection techniques. Secondary research is a three-stage process. First stage is searching for studies on drug court programs from research databases using key words such as drug court program and recidivism as well as drug court websites of research institutions or organizations that are belike to ease up made studies on drug court programs.GAO also considered previous studies it made on drug court programs. It also requested for drug court studies from research agencies. Second stage is critical review of the studies set in motion to determine those that qualify for its criteria of study reporting including recidivism, drug use, and program completion.Third stage is in-depth review to determine the studies that employed group comparableity methods such as those using experiment and control groups in experiment and quasi-experiments, whi ch employed either historical comparison group or contemporaneous comparison group (GAO 17). The studies selected also employed a number of statistical methods to address individual(a) differences and al diminished for comparison and collation as well as address selection diagonal (GAO 19).Interviews with three agencies yielded background information on the drug court programs including the characteristics of the drug court programs and the participants of these programs. (GAO 9-10) The analytical techniques also combined statistical with document or text analysis.The cabal of data collection methods and use of multiple analyses addressed selection bias arising from differences in the methodological approaches of the studies evaluated and derivation of as overmuch information as available to support generalizations.What are the results of the study?The results of the study had solid and weak points. These showed reduction in recidivism during the move of the program, lower per centage of re-arrests or re-convictions for participants of the program relative to non-participants, there was also relatively lower re-arrests or re-conviction across program participants, recidivism reduction was uniform regardless of the callousness of the drug-related offence.However, there was no conclusive data to support the link amongst specific characteristics of the program to indoors-program recidivism. Recidivism order within one-year after program completion were similar with recidivism during the program to indicate maintained low level of recidivism. (GAO 5-6) However, this only covers the immediate year following program completion.Data on drug use during the program was inconclusive. Drug tests showed a decline but self- inform use indicated no change (GAO 6). This could be due to the limitation of drug testing as the room of determining drug use within the program. This could also be due to methodological issues such as insufficient data or lack of comparat ive measures.Completion rates that depended on compliance with activities and responsibilities varied between 27 to 66 percent. Factors such as age and severity of offence are explanations of the part in completion rates with older participants more inclined to dispatch the program. (GAO 6) There were no definitive explanations for the variance in completion rates.Cost benefit analysis showed a greater cost per individual program participant when compared to cost per individual non-participant of the program. Results of four studies covering seven drug court programs indicated net benefits because of the decline in recidivism that meant decline in costs to the legal system and avoidance of costs to effectiveness victims of recidivism.Nevertheless, these did not consider indirect benefits. but two drug court programs reported actual data on cost savings of the criminal justice system. (GAO 6-7) more(prenominal) data is necessary to support generalizations on the comparative cos ts and benefits of drug court programs.What are opinions of the study?The study holds practiced value but it also has limitations. Its secure value comes from providing an overview of the state of knowledge over the effectiveness of drug court programs. tumble in recidivism, at least during the program and one-year immediately following program completion, reflected the extent of effectiveness of drug court programs.Some of the drug court programs also led to financial net benefits. This implies the contribution of the drug court programs in lowering drug-related recidivism. As such, Congress could decide to continue sanction federal appropriations to drug court programs.However, the study also has limitations as a former study that requires follow-ups. The use of secondary research meant that data relied on the results of existing studies, which is not sufficient to inform on the overall effectiveness of drug court programs.The use of interviews provided characteristics of th e drug court programs and the participants but was underutilized. The interviews could have yielded more data such as on implementation issues, best practice, areas for improvement, and other pertinent information to support the evaluation.Work CitedGovernment Accountability Office (GAO). Adult Drug Courts order Indicates RecidivismReductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes. Washington, DC GAO,