NCJ Number
225193
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 72 Issue: 2 Dated: September 2008 Pages: 54-60
Date Published
September 2008
Length
7 pages
Annotation
This article presents the methodology and findings of a process evaluation of the Accelerated Community Entry (ACE) program in the Federal Western District of Michigan, which uses the reentry court model in order to provide more structure to offenders reentering the community from prison.
Abstract
Despite identified limitations in the methodology of the process evaluation, the evaluation identified areas where the ACE program has excelled as well as areas where the program could improve. There was a strong consensus among participants and professional team members that the ACE program is operating as planned. Participants expressed positive feelings toward their experience in ACE. The evaluation recommends that more intensive efforts be exerted to locate employers willing to work with ACE participants; this could enhance the utility of the program and increase success rates for participants. The evaluation also recommends that participants’ stress management skills be assessed, so that goal-setting may not be too stressful for those with poor stress management skills. The process evaluation administered face-to-face interviews and surveys to participating offenders in the spring of 2006. Participating court personnel also completed surveys. The surveys and interviews focused on whether intended program policies were followed during ACE’s implementation in its first 12 months. Six of 11 offenders and 5 of 6 professionals participated in the evaluation. The reentry court used in the ACE program is a variation of a drug court. Reentry courts provide a structure for managing and facilitating reintegration of released offenders into the community. The court provides ancillary services that are needed to assist reentering offenders. In addition to providing access to needed resources and services in the community, the court structures swift, consistent, and behaviorally relevant consequences for violations of probation or supervised release. 20 references