skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 134759 Find in a Library
Title: Comments Regarding Dougherty County's Criminal Alcoholic Program
Journal: International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology  Volume:35  Issue:4  Dated:(Winter 1991)  Pages:351-359
Author(s): G S Green; Z H Phillips
Date Published: 1991
Page Count: 9
Type: Program/Project Evaluation
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This article responds to Richard Anson's reply to the authors' reanalysis of his evaluation of the Dougherty County (Georgia) Criminal Alcoholic Program (CAP) which places convictees on probation in lieu of incarceration.
Abstract: To evaluate the CAP, Anson determined whether or not there were fewer crimes committed by probationers during the 2-year post program period than during the 2 years prior to entering the CAP. Anson (1987) used a paired t-test to identify any statistically significant reductions in the number of crimes. The authors of this article reanalyzed Anson's data (1990) and those generated by a separately selected CAP sample. The authors questioned Anson's approach, arguing that it tended to obscure the true performance of the CAP. Rather than use a pre-post paired t-test, the authors used the more conventional method of counting persons who were caught for committing new crimes and assessing the seriousness of those crimes. Anson replied to this reanalysis in a subsequent article (1990). In responding to Anson's reply, the authors reassert what they consider to be the general benefits of their evaluation methods, answer Anson's assertions that the authors failed to interpret his findings correctly, and address Anson's criticisms about the authors' use of crime-seriousness scaling. 3 notes and 6 references
Main Term(s): Alcohol-Related Offenses; Alcoholism treatment programs
Index Term(s): Alternatives to institutionalization; Probation
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.