The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) funded agencies to develop programs to improve criminal justice, employment, education, health, and housing outcomes for released prisoners. SVORI was a goal-oriented initiative that specified outcomes that should be achieved by programs that were developed locally. The original Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI funded under NIJ grant 2004-RE-CX-0002 included a quasi-experimental impact evaluation to determine the effectiveness of programming. Specifically, the purpose of the impact evaluation was to determine whether individuals who participated in enhanced reentry programming, as measured by their enrollment in SVORI programs, had improved post-release outcomes than comparable individuals who did not participate in SVORI programming. Impact evaluation data collection for both SVORI and non-SVORI participants consisted of four waves of in-person, computer-assisted interviews and oral swab drug tests conducted in conjunction with two of the follow-up interviews. The research team collected data on a total of 2,391 individuals including 1,697 adult males (Part 1), 357 adult females (Part 2), and 337 juvenile males (Part 3). As part of the impact evaluation, experienced RTI field interviewers conducted pre-release interviews with offenders approximately 30 days before release from prison and a series of follow-up interviews at 3, 9, and 15 months post-release. These data provided information on criminal history and recidivism occurring by December 31, 2007. The Adult Males Data (Part 1), Adult Females Data (Part 2), and the Juvenile Males Data (Part 3) each contain the same 5,566 variables from the 3 waves of offender interviews, 10 drug test lab results variables, and 3 weight variables. (Note: Some interview questions were only asked of adults, and other questions were only asked of juveniles.) Offender interview variables include demographics, housing, employment, education, military experience, family background, peer relationships, program operations and services, physical and mental health, substance abuse, crime and delinquency, and attitudes toward those topics. Under NIJ Grant 2009-IJ-CX-0010, the original Multi-site Evaluation of SVORI data were updated in order to examine the questions of, "What works, for whom, and for how long?" This included follow-up interview questions of those previously (and currently still) incarcerated. New variables derived from data collected under the original SVORI impact evaluation between 2004 and 2007 were also added to Part 3. Part one included an additional 100 variables, part two an additional 102 variables and part 3 an additional 99 variables.

The purpose of this multisite program evaluation project was to provide detailed and systematic descriptions of participants and treatment program components for a sample of five drug treatment programs in local jails. Three of the programs were located in California: Jail Education and Treatment (JET), Deciding, Educating, Understanding, Counseling, and Evaluation (DEUCE), and Rebuilding, Educating, Awareness, Counseling, and Hope (REACH). Two programs were in New York State: Substance Abuse Intervention Division (SAID) and New Beginnings. The project was aimed at assessing program completion rates as well as 12-month post-release recidivism for program participants versus matched controls. Background information obtained about the participating offenders includes sex, race, age, education, marital status, and employment status, as well as history of drug use, previous drug treatment, mental illness, inpatient/outpatient episodes, and offenses and sentencing. Additional data cover program location, dates of release from the program and from jail, type of program termination, type of residence upon release, and anticipated post-custody treatment. Information on each conviction/disposition was obtained through state criminal information systems, and state-level criminal history data (rap sheets) were collected for both the treatment and comparison groups. The unit of analysis is arrest events.

The objective of this process evaluation was to evaluate the integrity of the Minnesota Correctional Facility (MCF)-Red Wing Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program service delivery system in order to (1) provide feedback designed to enhance the existing strengths of the RSAT program and improve any existing or potential weaknesses, and (2) prepare for a subsequent outcome evaluation. The process evaluation data consist of two administrations of the Correctional Institution Environment Scale (CIES) (Parts 1 and 2) and three rounds of Rating of Facilitation of RSAT Groups (Parts 3-5). Resident-participants in this study were male juvenile offenders incarcerated at the MCF-Red Wing who had been determined to have significant substance abuse problems as an aspect of their delinquency. A total of 69 residents participated in the RSAT program during the course of the evaluation. All RSAT program residents were required to participate in all aspects of the program. Four caseworkers, one chemical dependency counselor, and two teachers participated in all aspects of the process evaluation. Ten corrections officers and three administrators participated in the CIES administration. There are four forms of the Correctional Institution Environment Scale (CIES): (1) The Real Form (Form R), (2) the Short Form (Form S), (3) the Ideal Form (Form I), and (4) the Expectations Form (Form E). Form R and Form I were employed in this study. Form R measures resident and staff perceptions of the current or "actual" climate of the program. Form I is worded to allow residents and staff to answer questions in terms of an ideal program. Both forms are comprised of 90 true-false statements. The CIES was administered twice for this study, with the first administration in September 1999. Participants in this administration of the CIES were 28 residents of the Princeton Cottage (the cottage that housed the RSAT participants) and 12 staff (administrators, caseworkers, and corrections officers). The second administration was in December 1999. Participants in this administration were 25 residents of the Princeton Cottage and 10 staff (administrators, caseworkers, and corrections officers). The surveys were collected and sent to Marquette University investigators for scoring and interpretation. An extensive evaluation of group facilitation was undertaken, with all groups videotaped between May 1999 and September 1999. These videotapes were shipped to Marquette University for review. In total, 122 videotapes were reviewed and rated. Two randomly selected raters evaluated each tape on the 22-item Red Wing Global Scale developed for this evaluation. The primary components of the sessions evaluated by the rating scale involved (1) the adherence of the facilitators to the treatment model, (2) the skill level of the facilitators, and (3) the contribution of the residents to the group processes. Following training, the raters began rating the videotapes in a progression of three rounds (each round consisting of a month) conducted in June, August, and October of 1999.

This study examined adult drug treatment courts. Drug treatment courts are intended to reduce the recidivism of drug-involved offenders by changing their drug-use habits. These courts provide a connection between the criminal justice and treatment systems by combining treatment with structured sanctions and rewards. Researchers collected data between February 2001 and May 2002 on drug court participants, treatment services and staff, and organizations involved in drug court operations in four jurisdictions: Bakersfield, California, Jackson County, Missouri, Creek County, Oklahoma, and St. Mary Parish, Louisiana. Part 1, Retrospective Participant Data, contains recidivism and treatment data on 2,357 drug treatment court participants who were enrolled in one of the drug courts between January 1997 and December 2000. Part 2, Treatment Observation Data, contains data collected from observations of treatment sessions at each site from May through July 2001. Part 3, Staff Survey Data, provides data obtained through surveys of 54 treatment service staff members.

In 2014, the researchers began work on a grant from the National Institute of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness of home and field contacts in community supervision. The study was designed to describe the varying practices of home and other field contacts in community supervision, to document their use nationwide, and to evaluate their effectiveness in maintaining public safety and promoting compliance with supervision requirements. The research is designed to address the gap in the understanding of home and field contacts as part of community supervision. While home and field contacts with clients are common practice within many probation and parole agencies, little is known about how they are conducted, the goals of their use, and whether they impact client outcomes. Researchers conducted a mixed methods study of home and field contact practices within multiple agencies. A nationwide survey of community supervision agencies at the federal, state, and local levels was conducted to understand common policies and practices for home and field contacts. To analyze the effectiveness of home and field contacts, quasi-experimental designs were employed using administrative data. To understand the activities that make up home and field contacts and the goals behind them within each agency, officers were asked to complete a qualitative home and field contact checklist and participate in focus groups.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the New York City Department of Probation's initiative to place clients in specialized Substance Abuse Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) units for treatment and management. The main analytical strategy of this study was to determine whether clients who were appropriately matched to outpatient drug treatment were less likely to recidivate after treatment in this modality. The focus of the research was not so much on developing powerful prediction models, but rather on determining whether outpatient drug treatment was appropriate and effective for certain types of probationers. The evaluation research involved an in-depth analysis of a sample of 1,860 probationers who were sentenced between September 1991-September 1992 and referred to contracting outpatient drug treatment programs one or more times as of December 31, 1993. The following types of data were collected: (1) the New York City Department of Probation's demographic and drug use information, obtained during the presentence investigation and at intake to probation, (2) the Department of Probation's Central Placement Unit (CPU) database records for each referral made through the CPU, as well as monthly progress reports filled out by the treatment programs on each probationer admitted to drug treatment, (3) the New York State Department of Criminal Justice Statistics' data on criminal histories, and (4) probation officers' reports on whether clients were referred to treatment, the kind of treatment modality to which they were referred, and the dates of admission and discharge. Demographic and socioeconomic variables include age at first arrest and sentencing, gender, race or ethnicity, marital status, family composition, educational attainment, and employment status. Other variables include drug use history (e.g., age at which drugs were first used, if the client's family members used drugs, if the client was actively using heroin, cocaine, or alcohol at time of intake into treatment), criminal history (e.g., age at first arrest, number of arrests, types of crimes, prior convictions, and prior probation and jail sentences), and drug treatment history (e.g., number and types of prior times in drug treatment, months since last treatment program, number of admissions to a CPU program, and number of AIDS education programs attended).

This study seeks to examine important components of our nation's sex offender tracking and monitoring systems, with a focus on risk assessment and sexual recidivism (measured by re-arrest). Data were collected from 1,789 adult sex offenders in the following states. Florida: 500 cases Minnesota: 500 cases New Jersey: 291 cases South Carolina: 498 cases The data file contains another 551 cases from the state of Massachusetts. However, due to how and when those cases were identified they were not included in the Principal Investigator's focus and analysis. There are also another 151 cases where a study participant's state is missing. Total there are 2,491 cases and 1,947 variables.

This study is a process evaluation of a Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) program at the South Idaho Correctional Institution (SICI), addressing the following research questions: (1) Did the SICI RSAT program as delivered conform with its stated goals and objectives? (2) Did the program result in reduced recidivism, abstinence from drug and alcohol use, and reduced costs of incarceration? (3) Did the referral process identify the targeted population? (4) Would the SICI RSAT data, management, staffing, and design be suitably established within two years to allow for a full outcome evaluation? (5) Were there communication issues among the IDOC, Parole Commission, and contract providers that might interfere with program implementation and delivery? and (6) Were there any cooperative remedies that had been, or might be developed to address implementation and delivery difficulties? Researchers conducted field observations (Part 1, Observational Data) of program delivery by program leaders using both the Cognitive Change Program Module and the Minnesota Model-Based Chemical Dependency Treatment Modules in each of the three phases of the therapeutic community environment. Researchers administered questionnaires to inmates (Part 2, Inmate Interview Data) and staff (Part 3, Staff Interview Data) regarding their perceptions of program operations. Variables for Part 1 include the date and time of observation, nature of observation, clarity, organization, and substance of program delivery, the program leader's involvement and the quality of that involvement with inmates, how prepared the program leader was, and the general therapeutic atmosphere of the program. Demographic variables for Part 2 include the race, age, ethnicity, and level of education of each inmate. Other variables include use of alcohol and illegal drugs prior to incarceration, inmates' perceptions of the treatment personnel, their levels of involvement with the group meetings and cognitive self-change groups, the atmosphere of therapy, ratings of communication and delivery of treatment, quality of service, and the strengths and weaknesses of the RSAT program. Variables for Part 3 include staff's perceptions of the RSAT program and whether they felt the program content and delivery were well organized and easy to understand, perceptions of the program leader's preparation and involvement, perceptions of communication and consistency issues, the quality of service, and the strengths and weaknesses of the RSAT program.

This study assessed the Dallas County Judicial Treatment Center (DCJTC) in Texas. The DCJTC is a residential substance abuse treatment center for drug-involved felony offenders. It provides a treatment program of approximately six months in three major phases: orientation, main treatment, and re-entry. Data were collected from 429 offenders admitted to the DCJTC between January and December 1998. During their first week of treatment, residents completed a comprehensive intake battery that included (1) the Texas Christian University (TCU) initial assessment, (2) the TCU self-rating form (SRF), and (3) the TCU intake interview. The initial assessment gauged mental status, background and psychosocial functioning, alcohol and other drug use, and psychological status. The SRF assessed psychological functioning, social functioning, and motivation for treatment. The intake interview included detailed questions on the resident's social background, family and peer relations, health and psychological status, criminal history, drug use problems, and behavioral risks for HIV/AIDS. Progress made during treatment was measured by the TCU Resident Evaluation of Self and Treatment (REST) and the TCU Counselor Rating of Client (CRC) forms. The REST included all questions on the SRF, plus questions on offenders' perceptions of the structure of the program and their experiences while in treatment, an evaluation of the counselor, an evaluation of their own personality, and ratings of group and individual treatment sessions. The CRC forms rated residents on a set of attributes related to residents' ability to benefit from treatment and indicated the extent to which counseling activities with each client had focused on certain activities.

This study aimed to further evaluate previous findings regarding drug use and criminal behaviors among the criminal population by investigating the effectiveness of two Colorado Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Therapeutic Communities (RSAT TC) for offenders. The first, the Crossroad to Freedom House Therapeutic Community at the Arrowhead Correctional Center (ACC TC) was a prison-based program. The second was the community-based Peer I Therapeutic Community (Peer I). Two methodologies were used to gather data. Part 1, RSAT Outcome Data, contains quantitative data collected from five separate study groups of differing sample sizes that received differing levels of treatment, with a total of 778 cases. The groups were compared on five separate outcome variables: technical violation, new misdemeanor arrest, new felony arrest, return to prison, and overall supervision failure. To gather baseline information from participants, a researcher administered the intake packet in group format to participants within three weeks of admission to ACC TC. After completing the treatment programs, outcome data were collected for a two-year follow-up period for each participant. Part 2, Case Studies, consists of case studies of ten participants, two from each of the above five listed groups. One from each group had successful outcomes, and one did not. Successful outcomes were defined as participants who were still living in the community after 12 to 18 months without any new charges. Unsuccessful outcomes were defined as those participants who were returned to prison for technical violations or new charges and were eligible for study only if they had been living in the community for six to twelve months before returning to prison. Information for the case studies were gathered through interviews with both former prisoners and one of their significant others. Variables for Part 1 include demographic information, length of stay in both the ACC TC and Peer I, types of programs parolees were released to, and time period between leaving the Department of Corrections and any subsequent returns. Information was also gathered on the presence of psychological concerns as an adult, as well as in childhood. Part 2 consists of information regarding ACC TC and Peer I participants' post-treatment such as their employment status, financial well-being, significant relationships, relapse information and whether or not the interviewee has returned to the Department of Corrections since receiving treatment and being released.