Far too often, policymakers and practitioners implement re-entry initiatives without ever assessing the results of those initiatives, much less improving them once they have been implemented. Without such measures, several key questions will remain unanswered:

Including an evaluation component in a re-entry initiative can enable program administrators and policymakers in a given jurisdiction to answer these questions, helping them to develop and prioritize goals, measure success in reaching those goals, and identify areas for future improvement. Strong outcomes or other program evaluation data can also provide a buffer against politically driven reactions to isolated incidents, such as when a released prisoner commits a particularly heinous crime while under supervision.

As further detailed in the recommendations below, a successful evaluation requires analysis of both a program's process and its outcomes. A process evaluation examines the theory underlying the program, how the program is administered, and ultimately whether the program is administered in accordance with its intended design. Such an evaluation also considers a program's operation in its entirety through performance measurements, which assess elements such as funding, staffing, and the number and type of clients served. While a process evaluation indicates whether an effort has been implemented and the extent to which its operation is consistent with its intended design, a rigorous outcome evaluation can identify the impact of a program, the reasons behind a program's success or failure, and whether the program is cost-effective. An outcome evaluation generally focuses on a program's effectiveness, examining whether the program achieved its intended goal of, for example, helping people who have been released from incarceration secure long-term employment or reducing public expenditures on re-entering individuals. Outcome evaluations often include intermediate measures to enable local policymakers and practitioners to monitor how agency staff and divisions are performing particular tasks and functions that are critical to producing a desired outcome as well as to make midcourse improvements to program design and implementation.

Evaluation is crucial to the ongoing success of a re-entry initiative. By generating a constant flow of detailed information about the program's operations, successes, and failures, process and outcome, evaluations help policymakers and program administrators make informed decisions about program design, resource distribution, and funding streams. The recommendations that appear below discuss the major evaluation methods that jurisdictions should undertake in order to understand and improve re-entry outcomes. This section does not, however, provide specific detail that can be applied to particular aspect of a re-entry initiative. Rather, it offers a broader discussion about various evaluation methods that should be considered by any community working to improve prisoner re-entry outcomes.

Recommendations:

A.

Develop a sound logic model in order to build a shared understanding of a program's objectives, strategy, activities, and the relationships between program components and partners.

B.

Develop performance measures so that program administrators can continuously monitor staff performance, program components, and overall program progress.

C.

Conduct process evaluations to identify problems with program implementation, strategy, and service delivery.

D.

Conduct impact evaluations to determine whether and to what extent a program had its intended effect.

E.

Employ a cost-benefit analysis to quantify whether a program is operating efficiently.