Back to top

Evaluation program

Initial results from the Training Academy Evaluation Project (TAEP) assessing the training offered by the National Institute of Corrections' Academy are presented. Sections of this bulletin are: highlights; research strategy; findings regarding participant demographic and background profile, participants' overall evaluation of training, participants' evaluations of training applicability, and pre/post comparison of perceived applicability; and future directions. Overall, participants rate the training they receive as being of high quality and relevance.

Results from the Training Academy Evaluation Project (TAEP) assessing the training offered by the National Institute of Corrections' Academy are presented. This bulletin discusses how participants felt about individual trainers. Some highlights include: twenty-eight of the 34 trainers received high marks for satisfaction while also receiving an average score of 98% for them to lead classes again. The trainer strength most noted was knowledge of the field (27%), with the trainer weakness most often being insufficient time or hurried pace (10%).

<p>Results from the Training Evaluation Project assessing the training offered by the National Institute of Corrections are presented. This bulletin covers “training results (progress on training objectives), activity level changes (pre- and post-training behavior), and implementation results (in the workplace)” (p.1). Participants made moderate to substantial progress in meeting training objectives, engaged in 70.4% of key training-related behaviors, and made moderate progress implementing training objectives.</p>

<p>Results from the Training Evaluation Project assessing the training offered by the National Institute of Corrections are presented. Evaluations are made of more recent trainings instead of those conducted during the pilot phase of this project. The programs are Inmate Behavior Management, Administering a Small Jail, Conducting Prison Security Audits, and How to Run a Direct Supervision Housing Unit—Training for Trainers. On a 5 point scale, participants rated satisfaction with training and trainers a 4.52 and 4.77 respectively, the learning of training-related knowledge and skills a 4.55, and progress on action plans a 3.19.</p>

<p>Results from the Training Evaluation Project assessing the training offered by the National Institute of Corrections are presented. This bulletin’s primary purpose is to update CwRC-NIC Bulletin 4 (NICIC no. 024801) results about four recent training programs not included in the pilot project findings. The programs are Inmate Behavior Management, Administering a Small Jail, Conducting Prison Security Audits, and How to Run a Direct Supervision Housing Unit—Training for Trainers. Participants reported high to very high rates of training-related learning at the end of the course; 50% over-estimated the potential application of training in their jobs; and 75% lacked estimated progress on action plans.</p>

<p>Results from the Training Evaluation Project assessing the training offered by the National Institute of Corrections are presented. “The primary purpose of this bulletin is to examine leadership from a 360 degree perspective, and to assess relationships between training, leadership, and organizational change” (p. 3). It appears Correctional Leadership Development increased transformational leadership practices while Management Development for the Future had a small effect on leadership change.</p>

The results from a study of eight risk assessments used for determining which justice-involved youth are low-, moderate-, or high-risk for future delinquency are reviewed. Sections comprising this summary are: introduction; comparison of juvenile justice risk assessment instruments by agency, risk assessment model, and effectiveness; inter-rate reliability testing; validity and equity testing; and implications for practice. Risk assessment should be a simple process that is easily understood and articulated. This study’s findings show that simple, straightforward, actuarial approaches to risk assessment can produce the strongest results (p. 5).

NCCD Compares Juvenile Justice Risk Assessment Instruments: A Summary of the OJJDP-Funded Study Cover

This website provides access to materials related to the National Institute of Justice’s Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE). You should look at the information provided here If you are thinking of implementing or improving drug courts in your jurisdiction. Sections cover: description of the evaluation; research questions; data collection; and links to results from the evaluation (publications, dataset, and presentations).

NIJ’s Multisite Adult Drug Court Evaluation Cover

“NPC Research provides quality social services evaluation, policy analysis, research, and training.” This website provides information, reports, and evaluations pertaining to a wide range of project areas. Specialty Areas include child abuse and its prevention, community health, criminal justice, drug treatment courts and other problem-solving courts, early childhood and family well-being, juvenile justice, literacy, substance abuse prevention and treatment, and youth development and strengths. Publications and resources include publications, report, presentations, related links, and materials. Materials are organized according to: Drug Court Typology Interview Guide; Healthy Start; Juvenile Crime Prevention Risk and Protective Assessment; NARA; Oregon Relief Nursery; Reading for Healthy Families; Regional Action Initiative; and Youth Competency Assessment.

Reports and Publications Cover

Objective jail classification (OJC) is a process of assessing every jail inmate's custody and program needs and is considered one of the most important management tools available to jail administrators and criminal justice system planners. An effective system of inmate classification will reduce escapes and escape attempts, suicides and suicide attempts, and inmate assaults. OJC systems use locally developed and validated instruments, one at intake and another after a period of confinement, that identify the level of risk and needs presented by an inmate so that appropriate housing and program assignments can be made. The data generated through the classification process can also be used for operational, management, and planning purposes. This guide to OJC is intended for both jail administrators and other officials involved in local criminal justice system issues. It discusses key components of an OJC system, including instruments that use reliable and valid criteria, overrides by classification staff, staff training and commitment to OJC, and a housing plan that is consistent with classification outcomes. The author outlines specific aspects of system implementation, automation, monitoring, and evaluation of OJC systems. Policy implications and recommendations are also discussed.

Objective Jail Classification Systems: A Guide for Jail Administrators Cover

Pages

Subscribe to Evaluation program