Oklahoma District Attorneys Council
Nebraska Crime Commission
As discussed in the Pew-MacArthur First Results Initiative Report, Evidence-Based Policymaking: A Guide for Effective Government:
“Evidence-based policymaking uses the best available research and information on program results to guide decisions at all stages of the policy process and in each branch of government. It identifies what works, highlights gaps where evidence of program effectiveness is lacking, enables policymakers to use evidence in budget and policy decisions, and relies on systems to monitor implementation and measure key outcomes, using the information to continually improve program performance.”
This approach reduces wasteful spending, expands innovative programs, and strengthens accountability.
Outcome, Performance and Mission-Critical Data
An outcome measure is an indicator of an agency’s effectiveness in achieving a stated mission or intended purpose. A performance measure is a quantitative or qualitative characterization of performance. Mission-critical data is supporting data in areas strategically linked to outcome and performance measures.
National data specific to pretrial program outcomes and performance would help individual programs measure their effectiveness in achieving their goals and objectives and in meeting the expectations of their justice systems. Consistent with public-and private-sector best practices, pretrial services program outcome measures, performance measures, and mission-critical data would tie into the individual agency’s mission, local justice system needs, state and local bail laws, and national pretrial release standards.
Adult Redeploy: Supporting Local Capacity by Promoting Alternatives to Incarceration
Over the last 10 years, the Illinois Department of Corrections (DOC) has seen a steady increase in the number of inmates under its supervision. With a capacity of 33,663 inmates and more than 49,000 inmates currently under its control, the DOC is 70 percent over capacity. The majority of this increase comes from non-violent felonies (mostly associated with drug or property crimes) and the DOC has little room in its $1.3 billion budget for recidivism reduction initiatives. With an understanding that business as usual was unsustainable both in human and fiscal costs; a bipartisan group of legislators passed, and Governor Pat Quinn signed, the Illinois Crime Reduction Act of 2009.
Program evaluation is an invaluable aid in planning, developing, and managing programs. To be effective, however, program evaluation efforts must be placed within the broader context of program management. A flexible capacity for internal self-evaluation is fundamental to the management and ongoing improvement of programs. Click a topic below to learn more about the evaluation process:
Florida’s Redirection Initiative: Using Evidence-Based Practices to Improve Juvenile Outcomes and Save Taxpayers Money
States spend an average of $7.1 million a day keeping youth in residential facilities, according to estimates from a 2009 Justice Policy Institute study. These facilities are often expensive and vary greatly in quality, rehabilitative methodology and service provision. In many states, reliance on residential treatment facilities and other out of home placements have impacted juvenile justice agencies ability to support or enhance other community based alternatives.
Changing How We View Treatment: Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Treatment Interventions
According to a 2010 report from the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA), 2.3 million inmates in U.S. prisons, or 65 percent, meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV medical criteria for alcohol or other drug abuse and addiction. Another 20 percent, 458,000, are substance involved meaning they were under the influence of alcohol or other drugs at the time of their offense even though they don’t meet the DSM-IV medical criteria for alcohol and other drug abuse.
Public-Private Partnerships and Incentive-Based Contracting
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) within criminal justice systems have historically followed a fee for service model. Examples can be found in behavioral health, victim’s services and program evaluation. In the last decade, however, there has been a substantial expansion in how justice systems and private sector organizations partner to achieve common goals. Through the work of the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change and the Justice Reinvestment initiatives the paradigm has been shifting in how public and private partners allocate resources, structure service contracts and frame organizational goals.