From a Performance Measure to a Performance Evaluation Tool: Conceptual Development of the Equity and Inclusion Assessment Tool (EIAT)

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 Social Sciences
Fred L. Cheesman, Kathryn J. Genthon, Douglas B. Marlowe
{"title":"From a Performance Measure to a Performance Evaluation Tool: Conceptual Development of the Equity and Inclusion Assessment Tool (EIAT)","authors":"Fred L. Cheesman, Kathryn J. Genthon, Douglas B. Marlowe","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1656421","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Drug courts provide what is often a final opportunity for justice-involved persons suffering from substance use disorders to avoid the criminogenic effects of incarceration and the severe health threats associated with substance use, including death. All persons must be provided the same opportunity to participate and succeed in these courts, regardless of their race, ethnicity, assigned gender at birth, age, gender identity and sexual orientation. Research evidence indicates that disparities in drug court processing based on demographic characteristics of participants may be widespread, contrary to most concepts of fairness, particularly those espoused by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). The Equity and Inclusion Assessment Tool (EIAT) described in this article is designed to assist drug courts to determine whether equivalent access to drug court and equivalent retention in drug court exist among all ethnic, racial, and gender groups. This article describes how the EIAT emerged from earlier work by NCSC with a number of states to develop a performance measure that assessed Access and Fairness in drug courts by comparing the demographic characteristics of drug court referrals to drug court admissions, and admissions to exits.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1656421","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Drug courts provide what is often a final opportunity for justice-involved persons suffering from substance use disorders to avoid the criminogenic effects of incarceration and the severe health threats associated with substance use, including death. All persons must be provided the same opportunity to participate and succeed in these courts, regardless of their race, ethnicity, assigned gender at birth, age, gender identity and sexual orientation. Research evidence indicates that disparities in drug court processing based on demographic characteristics of participants may be widespread, contrary to most concepts of fairness, particularly those espoused by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). The Equity and Inclusion Assessment Tool (EIAT) described in this article is designed to assist drug courts to determine whether equivalent access to drug court and equivalent retention in drug court exist among all ethnic, racial, and gender groups. This article describes how the EIAT emerged from earlier work by NCSC with a number of states to develop a performance measure that assessed Access and Fairness in drug courts by comparing the demographic characteristics of drug court referrals to drug court admissions, and admissions to exits.
从绩效衡量到绩效评估工具:公平与包容评估工具(EIAT)的概念发展
毒品法庭为患有药物使用障碍的司法人员提供了往往是最后的机会,以避免监禁的犯罪影响和与药物使用有关的严重健康威胁,包括死亡。所有人,不论其种族、族裔、出生时指定的性别、年龄、性别认同和性取向,都必须有同样的机会参与并在这些法院取得成功。研究证据表明,基于参与者人口特征的毒品法庭处理的差异可能普遍存在,这与大多数公平概念,特别是与全国毒品法庭专业人员协会(NADCP)所支持的概念相反。本文中描述的公平和包容评估工具(EIAT)旨在帮助毒品法院确定是否在所有种族、种族和性别群体中存在同等进入毒品法庭和同等保留毒品法庭的机会。本文描述了eat是如何从NCSC与许多州的早期工作中产生的,通过比较毒品法庭转到毒品法庭入学和入学退出的人口统计学特征,开发了一种绩效衡量标准,评估了毒品法庭的准入和公平。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信