FY 2011 Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects Evaluability Assessment, Executive Summary

• NCJ Number: 243978
• Author(s): Janeen Buck Willison; Jennifer Hardison Walters; Lindsey Cramer; Jocelyn Fontaine; Aaron Horvath; Colleen Owens; Shelli Rossman; Kelly Walsh; Kelle Barrick; Erin Kennedy; Lara Markovits
• Date Published: September 2012
• Length: 12 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2012-R2-CX-0032
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Research (Applied/Empirical); Report (Summary); Report (Study/Research); Report (Grant Sponsored)

Annotation

This study conducted an evaluability assessment (determination of whether a project is a candidate for meaningful evaluation) of eight FY 2011Second Chance Act (SCA) demonstration sites with the goals of increasing reentry programming for returning prisoners and their families; reducing recidivism of program participants by 50 percent over 5 years, reducing parole violations, and improving reintegration outcomes.

Abstract

Although 8 sites were initially targeted for the evaluability assessment, this number expanded to 10 in the spring of 2013. One site (Johnson County, KS) declined further participation in the grant program after the evaluability assessment began. An evaluability assessment of each of the remaining nine sites found that each could support some level of evaluation. Five sites were strong candidates for impact evaluation; their program operations were stable and well-defined, and they had sufficient data sources to support an evaluation, and potential comparison groups were accessible. Three of the sites can support process/implementation evaluations, recidivism outcome analysis and cost analyses, and one site is best suited for a case study. In order to ensure that sites remain viable for evaluation, supplemental funding should be provided soon and at a level that enables programs to operate at full capacity. The evaluability assessment at each site documented and profiled program operations and implementation issues; determined program stability and maturity; gauged compliance with the SCA model; documented program logic and case flow; determined the extent to which viable comparison groups could be established; identified extant data sources to support evaluation; and developed evaluation recommendations. Assessment included a review of program materials and documents, analysis of Bureau of Justice Assistance aggregate performance data, a pre-visit phone interview, and site visits. 1 exhibit and 5 references