A passive treatment alternative for the removal of metal and organic contaminants from runoff and effluent in CDFs was evaluated in this study. Activated carbon impregnated curtains have been used for different remediation projects; however, very little research has been conducted to understand its sorption behavior, breakthrough time, and exhaustion time of contaminants under high flow rates characteristic of CDF runoff and effluent. The major objectives of this study were to evaluate the efficiency of the curtain in removing contaminants from a synthetic effluent in a flow through regime and estimate the expected life of the curtains. Equilibrium tests, batch sorption tests and column tests were conducted to evaluate the feasibility of this alternative. The copper column tests showed that the curtain is not efficient in the removal of metals; whereas, the Aroclor1016 column tests showed that the curtains could potentially be used as a treatment alternative for organic contaminants.

No description available.

Mothers of ADHD children were surveyed using an on-line methodology. Respondents (n = 93) were largely well-educated and Caucasian. Their children had been diagnosed for an average of 2.7 years. Maternal attributions for their child's ADHD symptoms were examined for relationships with treatment acceptability and satisfaction with behavior modification, medication, and combined treatments. Results showed that mothers tended to view their child's symptoms as being uncontrollable, changeable, and situational. Also, mothers rated medication-based treatment options as more acceptable than behavior modification alone. Medication was rated as satisfactory by a majority of participants and as more satisfactory than behavior modification. No relationship existed between maternal attributions and treatment acceptability. Higher satisfaction with academic skills interventions was associated with lower maternal attributions of behavior stability. The opposite was true for satisfaction with medication. Overall, parents were optimistic about the future of their children’s symptoms and reported satisfaction with all treatment options.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Since it was first articulated, the Risk-Need-Responsivity model (RNR; Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990) has been extensively researched and is regarded as an empirically supported model for providing effective correctional treatment. It is comprised of three core principles: the risk principle, which provides direction for who should receive treatment; the need principle, which identifies intermediate treatment targets; and the responsivity principle, which states how treatment programs should be structured. The RNR model is purported to be relevant for all offender populations, including female offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 1999a), juvenile offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 1999b), violent offenders (Dowden & Andrews, 2000), and sexual offenders (Hanson, Bourgon, Helmus, & Hogdson, 2009). Yet, the majority of RNR research has examined the risk and need principles, and the responsivity principle remains understudied. The responsivity principle includes two sub-principles: general and specific (Andrews, & Bonta, 2010). The current research explored the general responsivity principle, which states that programs should use theoretically relevant models for individual change, specifically cognitive-behavioral and cognitive-social learning models (Andrews & Bonta, 2010). The following techniques are consistent with these models: "role-playing, modeling, repeated practice of alternative behaviors, cognitive restructuring to modify thoughts/emotions, skills building, or reinforcement" (Andrews & Bonta, 2010, p. 50). Despite empirical support, the RNR model has received minimal application to juveniles, and it has not been widely tested in the substance abuse treatment context. Additionally, it is not clear whether adherence to the RNR model is relevant for reducing substance use outcomes in youth. Adolescent substance abuse treatment programs were designed to address substance use among juveniles, and have been widely researched to determine their effectiveness; yet their effectiveness remains understudied among juvenile offenders. These studies include examinations of specific treatment interventions used, such as Multisystemic Therapy. Many of these interventions are considered to be "evidence-based treatment" (EBT), but there is a wide variety of repositories that classify interventions as "evidence-based" with varying criteria used to classify them. The juvenile drug treatment court model (JDTC) was specifically developed to address substance use and crime among juvenile offenders; however, findings from empirical studies have not demonstrated a strong treatment effect. To address these gaps in the literature, secondary analyses were conducted on data collected from 132 adolescent outpatient substance abuse treatment programs (AOPs) and 10 juvenile drug treatment courts nationwide. This research was an application of the general responsivity principle in the AOP and JDTC context to determine the impact of responsivity adherence on the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. The analyses also included an examination of evidence-based treatment (EBT) in both samples to determine the influence of EBT use scores on the odds of rearrests and substance use severity scores. To examine the AOP sample, multilevel models were used to examine the individual- and program-level impact of responsivity adherence and EBT use. To examine the JDTC sample, multivariate analyses were used to examine the individual-level impact of responsivity adherence and EBT use. Overall, responsivity adherence was not significantly associated with rearrests among AOP participants, nor was it significantly associated with substance use severity scores. Additionally, the odds of rearrest were significantly greater among individuals who received interventions with a higher EBT use score; though, there was no association between the average EBT use scores across programs and the odds of rearrest. There was no significant association between individual- and program-level EBT use scores and substance use severity. Among JDTC participants, an increase in responsivity adherence was associated with an increase in the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. A similar association emerged between EBT use scores and both outcomes, wherein increases in EBT use scores were significantly associated with an increase in the odds of rearrest and substance use severity. The results of the analyses suggest the need for further specification of both general responsivity adherence and "evidence-based" treatment for use in future research and theory; specifically, further elaboration of the general responsivity-adherent techniques and clear criteria for classifying interventions as "evidence-based treatment." The findings also imply that certain types of treatment interventions are more compatible with the JDTC model than other interventions. Additional analyses suggest the possibility that general responsivity adherence and evidence-based treatment may not be unique constructs. Future research may benefit through exploring evidence-based treatment as a criterion for adherence to the general responsivity principle. / Criminal Justice

No description available.

Over the past three decades, the United States criminal justice system and mental health treatment providers have collaborated in ways to support more than 20.3 million individuals who are struggling with a substance use disorder (SUD), and who may also be facing drug-related offenses due to their ongoing challenges combatting addiction. Through collaborative efforts we have been fortunate to witness the establishment of adult drug treatment courts, as well as other problem-solving court processes. With more than 1,500 active adult drug treatment court programs in this country, there is a critical need to better understand the working alliance between counselors and clients who have been mandated to receive SUD treatment. Adult drug treatment court programs have been shown to have discrepant success outcomes (8% to 80%) in terms of reducing criminal recidivism; moreover, the existing literature examining the lived experiences of participants in these programs is both minimal and disheartening. This lack of empirical data is problematic for the counseling profession given that they serve as key change agents in this process. What we do know is that the process of creating treatment goal and modalities, which should be in the hands of the clients and their counselors, can be complicated by court-mandated requirements. This bi-level structure has the potential to create ruptures in the working alliance between clients and counselors providing SUD treatment to this population. Accordingly, additional research is needed to explore the client experience within the working alliance, and in so doing reveal the influences at play when working with clients who are mandated to receive SUD treatment. This qualitative study was guided by one central research question: How do clients experience the working alliance with counselors during drug court-mandated addictions treatment? Interview data from eight individuals in court-mandated SUD treatment led to the development of a constructivist grounded theory model: From compliance to alliance: A grounded theory of building rapport in mandated treatment. This model and it's components describe and define key factors when working with this population. More research is needed to understand counselors' perspectives of the working alliance with court-mandated clients. / Doctor of Philosophy / With more than 1,500 active drug court programs throughout the United States, there is a pressing need to better understand the working alliance between counselors and clients who have been mandated to receive SUD treatment. While adult drug treatment court programs have been shown to have positive outcomes in terms of reducing criminal recidivism, the existing literature examining the participants' lived experiences receiving SUD treatment is minimal and disheartening. Due to the nature of the mandated treatment relationship, the confidentiality which has historically bound and secured the therapeutic working alliance is less defined than it is in fully voluntary treatment settings. This shift in understanding what creates a healthy working alliance for mandated clients to work through presenting treatment issues is something that has yet to be explored by current research. The current study sought to explore clients' experiences of the working alliance with counselors during drug court-mandated addictions treatment. Interview data from eight individuals in court-mandated SUD treatment led to the development of a constructivist grounded theory model: From compliance to alliance: A grounded theory of building rapport in mandated treatment. This model and it's components describe and define key factors when working with this population. More research is needed to understand counselors' perspectives of the working alliance with court-mandated clients.