Back to top

Evaluation program

"As an alternative to traditional juvenile courts, juvenile drug courts attempt to provide substance abuse treatment, sanctions, and incentives to rehabilitate nonviolent drug-involved youth, empower families to support them in this process, and prevent recidivism. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) sponsored a multisite study of juvenile drug courts to examine the ability of these courts to reduce recidivism and improve youth’s social functioning, and to determine whether these programs use evidence-based practices in their treatment services. This bulletin provides an overview of the findings" (p. 1). The results from this multi-site study does not support the efficacy of juvenile drug courts. In fact, juveniles who were drug court participants had higher recidivism rates than youth on probation. Based on the process evaluation, recommendations are provided for improving juvenile drug courts.

Juvenile Drug Courts: A Process, Outcome, and Impact Evaluation cover

"This Tech Guide is designed to introduce the role of performance measurement . . . and to teach core dynamics of performance management, monitoring, and reporting" (p. 4). Nine chapters are contained in this guide: what performance measurement is and why it is important; establish an integrated performance measurement framework; define mission and strategic performance objectives; establish a performance management framework; establish accountability for performance; develop a data collection plan; analyze, review, and report performance data; use performance information to drive improvement; and build performance management into everyday policing. Sample assessment measures and examples of performance management in justice agencies are also included. This publication is a companion guide to "Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to Plan, Purchase and Manage Technology (Successfully) (NIC accession no. 018694).

Law Enforcement Tech Guide for Creating Performance Measures That Work:  A Guide for Executives and Managers Cover

“The significant challenges faced by those leaving jail and the high price of continued offending underscore the importance of capitalizing on jail contact to link individuals with services both while in the jail and as they return to the community. However, providing supportive interventions in jail settings is extremely challenging. While a number of innovative practices exist, there is much progress to be made in the design of services that can support people as they leave jail and return home” (p. 5). The effectiveness of the Los Angeles County Jail to provide reentry services to individuals being released is evaluated. Other jails can find valuable suggestions for improving their own jail reentry services by reading this report. Sections of the technical report include: executive summary; introduction; profiles of interviewees in jail custody; reentry service delivery and engagement including the Community Transition Unit (CTU); operations and efficiency; coordination between the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD) and other agencies and organizations; and conclusion. Some of the 11 recommendations to maximize the efficiency of reentry services provided by the jail are: expand awareness of the CTU to potential clients; integrate risks and needs assessments into reentry services; individualize reentry service plans; and strengthen the ties between the jail and community-based providers. You can download the technical report, summary report, and/or fact sheet at this website.

Making the Transition: Rethinking Jail Reentry in Los Angeles County Cover

This brief examines the impact a mandatory reentry supervision program has on spending and public safety. Kentucky requires that every inmate that is released from prison undergo post-release supervision to ensure that the inmate has the necessary monitoring and/or support in the community. Results show that the post-release supervision program: "improved public safety by helping reduce new offense rates by 30 percent; resulted in a net savings of approximately 872 prison beds per year; [and] saved more than $29 million in the 27 months after the policy took effect" (p. 1).

Mandatory Reentry Supervision: Evaluating the Kentucky Experience Cover

The first edition of this publication was released in 2011. As pretrial services have redefined its goals and strategic objectives, so must its outcome and performance metrics change. To that end—and to ensure that metrics for the field continue to be developed by practitioners—NIC commissioned PEN to assess the current pretrial landscape and revise current metrics to match these new dynamics. This process included internal discussion by PEN members and input via a survey from pretrial services agency directors whose agencies collect performance metrics. PEN member discussions and the survey focused on which measures “work” in the real world, which were problematic, and what other data should be considered to gauge agency outcomes. The metrics presented here reflect this feedback. Outcomes are now tied to the three principles of bail—maximizing release, court appearance, and public safety—and a more refined definition of system “success” in meeting these objectives. Included commentary discusses how changes in the pretrial landscape over the past decade have helped redefine outcome and performance metrics.

cover image for publication

Like its previous edition, Measuring What Matters, Second Edition helps agencies gather consistent and meaningful data to track the performance of pretrial programs based on the mission and needs of their local criminal justice system.

The second edition emphasizes measures that “work” in the real world and introduces a new definition of what it means to be successful in pretrial services. Each measure ties to the three principles of bail—maximizing release, ensuring court appearance, and maintaining public safety—and features commentary discussing how the measure has changed over time based on changes in the pretrial field. Today’s pretrial service agencies use outcome and performance metrics as an integral part of their pretrial practice and training. With the development of professional standards for the pretrial services field comes the need to have measures that will help them meet the challenge.

This webinar introduces NIC’s new publication and highlights key defining outcome and performance measures for pretrial agencies. The session will also describe how to tie the key measures to the three principles of bail: maximizing release, court appearance, and public safety.

Learning Objectives:

During this 90-minute interactive webinar, participants will:

  • Be introduced to Measuring What Matters: Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Services Field, Second Edition
  • Highlight key defining outcome and performance measures and supporting business practices
  • Describe how to tie the key measures to the three principles of bail: maximizing release, court appearance, and public safety
  • Provide specific site examples of jurisdictions implementing key measures and sharing successes, challenges, and lessons learned

This webinar originally aired on September 21, 2021 at 10am PT / 11am MT /12pm CT / 1pm ET for 90 minutes.


  • Greg Crawford, Correctional Program Specialist, National Institute of Corrections
  • Spurgeon Kennedy, President-Elect, National Association of Pretrial Service Agencies
  • Barb Hankey, Manager, Oakland County Community Corrections, Michigan

Panel Members

  • Jessica Beach, Community Justice Director, Yamhill County, Oregon
  • Kelly Bradford, Statewide Pretrial Program Manager, Administrative Office of the Courts, New Mexico
  • Domingo Corona, Director of Pretrial Services, Pima County, Arizona
  • Janice Dean, Pretrial Services Director, 5th Judicial District of Pennsylvania
  • Rhonda Frank-Loron, Pretrial Program Manager, Madison, Wisconsin


A "review of selective and indicated mentoring interventions that have been evaluated for their effects on delinquency outcomes for youth . . . and key associated outcomes" is presented (p. 2). Sections in addition to a synopsis and abstract include: background; objectives; methods -- criteria for inclusion and exclusion of studies in review; results; and conclusions. "These results suggest mentoring, at least as represented by the included studies, has positive effects for these important public health problems, albeit from small to modest in effect size" (p. 20).

Mentoring Interventions to Affect Juvenile Delinquency and Associated Problems Cover

The use of outcome-oriented performance measurement by community leaders is explained. Sections of this report include: introduction; three profiles in outcome-oriented performance measurement systems; the challenge of creating these systems; recommendations for creating these systems; conclusion; and an appendix comparing government-sponsored and community indicator approaches.

Moving Toward Outcome-Oriented Performance Measurement Systems Cover

This 30 minute program explores the National Institute of Corrections’ publication “Measuring What Matters: Outcome and Performance Measures for the Pretrial Services Field” (NIC accession no. 025172). This report provides guidance for making pretrial agencies more effective. Lori Eville and Spurgeon Kennedy are interviewed.

Results from projects implementing new strategies for drug interdiction within an institutional setting are presented. This compilation includes findings from final evaluation reports provided by Maryland, California, Kansas, New York, and Florida.


Subscribe to Evaluation program