Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

This article critically reviews the evidence on sex offender treatment and subsequently provides new estimates on short-term recidivism among sexual offenders released from prison in New Jersey. The sample of male sex offenders is drawn from the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC), New Jersey's only sex-offender-specific prison, and the general population of nine prisons within the state of New Jersey. The ADTC sample receives treatment while incarcerated (n = 495), whereas no treatment is provided to the offenders in the general population sample (n = 223). Overall, 33% of the total sample (N= 718) commits a new offense. Of the total sample, 14% commits a new sexual offense and 24% commits a new nonsexual offense. Significant differences exist between the ADTC and the general population samples with respect to nonsexual reoffending only. In the final analysis, treatment appears to matter in terms of a reduction in recidivism but not in conventionally expected ways.

Current research indicates a disproportionate number of youth having an emotional disturbance within the juvenile justice system. The purpose of the present study was to examine if recidivism can be predicted in juvenile offenders based on the youths' emotional disturbance score as measured by the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Version 2 (MAYSI-2) and severity of offense at their first physical arrest, as well as their age, gender, ethnicity, and median range of income by zip code (MRoI). Following Agnew's General Strain Theory, it was hypothesized that high scores on the MAYSI-2 scales, in addition to severity of offense and specific demographic variables would predict recidivism.Participants consisted of 863 records of juvenile offenders at a juvenile court detention center in Southern Arizona. The study consisted of 70% males and 30% females, with an age range of 12 to 16 years of age and ethnic breakdown consisting of 51% Hispanics, 36% Caucasians, 9% African Americans, and 4% Native Americans. This secondary data extraction included youths who were physically arrested for the first time during the 2008-year and their recidivism rate through the 2009-year. Results through logistic regression models indicated that two of the four MAYSI-2 scales significantly predicted recidivism. Specifically, youth who scored high versus low on the Alcohol/Drug Use scale had an increased factor of 1.83 times more likely to recidivate. Youth who answered "yes" on all five items on the Traumatic Experiences scale also predicted recidivism, with an increased factor of 4.37 times more likely to recidivate. Severity of offense also predicted recidivism, as well as age and MRoI. Results were also found to be significant within certain ethnic groups but not between the ethnic groups. Implications of these findings, limitations, and areas of future research are also discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

It is the purpose of this study to (1) present a signal system for offensive football including automatics; (2) compare it with whose systems already in use; and (3) present the reactions of nine coaches using it at the junior high school, senior high school, junior college, and professional levels.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Mokslinė problema: kokie yra Lietuvos vyrų krepšinio rinktinės gynybos ir puolimo veiklos ypatumai. Tyrimo objektas: Lietuvos vyrų krepšinio rinktinės žaidimo gynybos ir puolimo ypatumai. Tyrimo tikslas: nustatyti Lietuvos vyrų krepšinio rinktinės žaidimo ypatumus XXX olimpinėse žaidynėse. Tyrimo uždaviniai: 1. Nustatyti Lietuvos vyrų krepšinio rinktinės žaidimo ypatumus puolime. 2. Nustatyti Lietuvos vyrų krepšinio rinktinės žaidimo ypatumus gynyboje. Rezultatai. Lietuvos vyrų krepšinio rinktinė Londono olimpinėse žaidynėse vidutiniškai per rungtynes pelnė po 78,2 ± 8,1 taško, atšokusį kamuolį atkovojo 38,2 ± 5,3 kartų, puolime kamuolį atkovojo 9 ± 2,4 karto, atliko 18,2 ± 3,9 rezultatyvaus perdavimo, prasižengė 24,7 ± 3,9 karto, padarė 16,3 ± 4,0 technikos klaidų, perėmė 4,3 ± 3,1 kamuolio, blokavo 2,0 ± 1,1 varžovo metimo. Lietuvos rinktinės pozicinių atakų veiksmingumas – 48%, greitųjų atakų – 60,3%. Lietuvos rinktinės atakų, trukusių iki 5 s veiksmingumas – 60,3%, 6–9 s atakų veiksmingumas – 51,6%, 10–15 s atakų veiksmingumas – 50,7%, 16–20 s atakų veiksmingumas – 43,2%, 21–24 s atakų veiksmingumas – 33,3%. Lietuvos krepšinio rinktinės gynybos veiksmingumas taikant asmeninę gynybą buvo 50,1%, aikštės gynybą – 68%, asmeninį spaudimą visoje aikštėje – 60,6%, asmeninį spaudimą pusėje aikštės – 44,4%, asmeninį spaudimą aktyviai dengiant žaidėją su kamuoliu – 45%, zoninį spaudimą visoje aikštėje – 14,3%. Išvados: 1. Lietuvos vyrų krepšinio rinktinė XXX-ųjų olimpinių... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Research problem: what are lithuanian national basketball men team‘s indicators on defence and offence. Research object: Lithuanian national basketball men team‘s performance. Research aim: to identify performance of Lithuanian national basketball men team in the XXX olympic games. Research objectives: 1. To identify Lithuanian national basketball men team‘s defensive performance. 2. To identify Lithuanian national basketball men team‘s offensive performance. Results. The average number of points per game by Lithuanian national basketball men‘s team in London olympic games was 78.2 ± 8.1. The other statistical averages are following: 38.2 ± 5.3 rebounds per game; 9 ± 2.4 offensive rebounds per game; 18.2 ± 3.9 assists per game; 24.7 ± 3.9 committed fouls; 16.3 ± 4.0 turnovers; 4.3 ± 3 stolen balls; 2.0 ± 1.1 blocked shots. The efficiency of the atacks were 48% of the positionals and 60.3% of the fastbreaks. The efficiency of the attacks depending on their duration were following: fastbreaks (up to 5 sec) – 60.3%; hasty attacks (6¬¬¬¬¬–9 sec) – 51.6%; positional attacks (10–15 sec) – 50.7%; positional attacks (16–20 sec) – 43.2%; positional attacks (21–24 sec) – 33.3 %. The most effective defensive structure that Lithuanian national basketball men‘s team used was zone defense – efficiency of 68%. Other defensive structures were: man to man – 50.1%; full court man to man preassure – 60.6%; half court man to man preassure – 44.4%; man to man preassure on a player... [to full text]