Table 2 Mixed effects regression model of perceived importance of substance use prevention
From: Perceived importance of substance use prevention in juvenile justice: a multi-level analysis
|
Model 1 Unstandardized coefficient (95% CI) |
Model 2 Unstandardized coefficient (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Employee-level variables | ||
| Substance use prevention as part of agency’s responsibilities (grand mean-centered) |
1.104*** (0.564, 1.644) |
1.074*** (0.550, 1.599) |
| Probation officer (vs. all other job types) |
−0.813 (− 1.823, 0.196) |
− 0.415 (− 1.396, 0.566) |
| Works in behavioral health unit (vs. non-behavioral health unit) |
0.391 (− 1.006, 1.789) |
0.337 (− 1.028, 1.702) |
| Age in years (grand mean-centered) |
0.071** (0.019, 0.122) |
0.078 (0.028, 0.128) |
| Female (vs. male) |
1.466** (0.526, 2.407) |
1.443** (0.529, 2.357) |
| Race/ethnicity | ||
| Non-Hispanic white | Reference | Reference |
| Non-Hispanic African American |
1.313* (0.115, 2.511) |
1.345* (0.215, 2.474) |
| All others |
0.304 (− 1.196, 1.804) |
0.208 (− 1.236, 1.652) |
| Site-level variables | ||
| Use of at least 1 evidence-based screening instrument (vs. no evidence-based screening instrument) | – |
1.905** (0.788, 3.022) |
| Routine of drug testing during screening (vs. no routine use) | – |
1.722*** (0.800, 2.644) |
| Substance use prevention programming | ||
| Use of at least 1 evidence-based prevention program | – |
0.738 (−0.388, 1.865) |
| Use of a locally developed prevention program | – |
0.343 (− 0.819, 1.505) |
| No substance use prevention program | – | Reference |
| Constant |
45.103 (44.042, 46.165) |
42.440 (40.994, 43.886) |
| Random-Effects Parameters | ||
| Variance(constant) |
0.880 (0.406, 1.903) |
1.38E−09 (5.84E−13, 3.25E− 06) |
| Variance(residual) |
4.988 (4.672, 5.324) |
4.902 (4.600, 5.224) |