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
| Â | Model 1 Unstandardized coefficient (95% CI) | Model 2 Unstandardized coefficient (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
Employee-level variables | Â | Â |
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) |