| Title |
Economic Evaluation of the Juvenile Drug Court/Reclaiming Futures (JDC/RF) Model
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11414-018-9606-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Kathryn McCollister, Pamela Baumer, Monica Davis, Alison Greene, Sally Stevens, Michael Dennis |
| Abstract |
Juvenile drug court (JDC) programs are an increasingly popular option for rehabilitating juvenile offenders with substance problems, but research has found inconsistent evidence regarding their effectiveness and economic impact. While assessing client outcomes such as reduced substance use and delinquency is necessary to gauge program effectiveness, a more comprehensive understanding of program success and sustainability can be attained by examining program costs and economic benefits. As part of the National Cross-Site Evaluation of JDC and Reclaiming Futures (RF), an economic analysis of five JDC/RF programs was conducted from a multisystem and multiagency perspective. The study highlights the direct and indirect costs of JDC/RF and the savings generated from reduced health problems, illegal activity, and missed school days. Results include the average (per participant) cost of JDC/RF, the total economic benefits per JDC/RF participant, and the net savings of JDC/RF relative to standard JDC. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 44 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 7 | 16% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 17 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 16% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 9% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 9% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 11% |
| Unknown | 17 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 April 2018.
All research outputs
#13,558,274
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
#310
of 469 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,298
of 333,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research
#19
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 469 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.0. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.