Annsville Youth Center Implementation Evaluation

Implementation Evaluation When Glick and Goldstein first developed the ART curriculum, they implemented the policy solution at the Annsville Youth Center, A New York State Division for Youth residential facility. Annsville Youth Center houses, “boys ages 14 to 17 who have committed such crimes as assault, burglary, auto theft, possession of stolen property, criminal trespass, and drug use” (Glick, et al., 1987, page 357). Glick and Goldstein dutifully studied the implementation process of ART for the 60 juveniles who were in residence at Annsville Youth Center during that time. With a sample size of only 60, the scope of this evaluation was small, but sufficient for the sake of a basic implementation evaluation. The researchers carried out

To focus their target population further, Glick and Goldstein replicated the previous study at the MacCormick Secure Center, another New York State Division for Youth facility. However, this particular detention center housed male inmates between ages 13 and 21 who committed serious felonies. With this population, less measures were determined to be statistically significant when compared with the results from the Annsville Youth Center implementation evaluation (See Figures 4 and

Because of the CJAA, Washington State funded and the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP) administered the systematic study of four different types of treatment programs for juveniles, including ART. Using a pseudo-random assignment waitlist procedure, WSIPP assigned 1,229 adjudicated youths to either a control (n=525) or treatment group (n=704) throughout 26 different juvenile courts across Washington State (Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004). Staff from the 26 participating juvenile courts utilized the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA), an assessment tool especially designed for the CJAA, to determine whether or not the juvenile was eligible to enter the study. The WSJCA was a two-step process, with the first step involving a pre-screen which assessed criminal history and social history risk scores. Then, only the individuals who were determined to be moderate-risk or high-risk in the pre-screen proceeded to the second step of the assessment which determined a complete risk profile. Per the parameters of the study, the court staff only selected those with, “Moderate- or high-risk, and: a score of at least one for a weapon, violent misdemeanor, or