“This guide is designed to introduce and explain the key concepts in outcome evaluation research in order to help practitioners distinguish between good and poor quality evaluation reports” (p. 3). Topics covered include: what evaluation is; the role of evaluation design; how well the evaluation is carried out; sample size appropriateness; definitions of evaluation terms; cost-benefit analysis; meta-analyses and systematic reviews; assessing the report’s quality; and “Is This a Good Quality Evaluation Report?” checklist.
“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.
“This monograph presents recommended outcome and performance measures and mission-critical data … [that] will enable pretrial service agencies to gauge more accurately their programs’ effectiveness in meeting agency and justice system goals” (p. v). Sections of this publication include introduction, outcome measures, performance measures, mission-critical data, setting targets, and examples of pretrial release program measures.
In this publication, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) explores the feasibility of mobilizing an “organizational accident,” learning-from-error approach in the criminal justice system. We introduce the notion of the “sentinel event”: a bad outcome that no one wants repeated and that signals the existence of underlying weaknesses in the system.
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.
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>