Correctional practitioners have long argued that evaluators focus too heavily on recidivism measures and thus understate the value of their programs. The author asserts that the impact of community corrections programs can be more comprehensively evaluated when evaluation plans include measures that assess whether program goals, objectives, and overall mission were met. Therefore, the intent of this article is to offer a model for evaluating community corrections programs based on what they promised to do in their mission statements. Justification for the model, conceptual framework, and an example of how to use the model are discussed below.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
2.
Boone, H. N. (1994a). An examination of recidivism and other outcome measures: A review of the literature. Perspectives, 18, 12-18.
3.
Boone, H. N. (1994b). Recommended outcome measures for program evaluation: APPA’s board of directors survey results. Perspectives, 18, 19-20.
4.
Boone, H. N.,& Fulton, B. (1995). Results driven management: Implementing performance-based measures in community corrections (NIJ #93-IJ-CX-004). Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
5.
Chen, H.-T., & Rossi, P. (1980). The multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science. Social Forces, 59, 106-122.
6.
Conrad, J. P. (1984). The redefinition of probation: Drastic proposals to solve an urgent problem. In McAnany, P., Thomson, D., & Fogel, D. (Eds.), Probation and justice: Reconsideration of mission (pp. 251-273). Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlagerm Gunn, and Hain.
7.
Cullen, F. T. (2002). Rehabilitation and treatment programs. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 253-289). Oakland, CA: ICS.
8.
DiIulio, J. (1993). Rethinking the criminal justice system: Toward a new paradigm. In Performance measures for the criminal justice system (NCJ-143505) (pp. 1-16). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
9.
Falsey, T. (1989). Corporate philosophies and mission statements. New York: Quorum.
10.
Garcia, C. A. (1996). Measurement in community corrections: Intensive supervision revisited. UMI Dissertation Services (University Microforms No. 9700027).
11.
Garcia, C. A. (2000). Using Palmer’s global approach to evaluate ISP: Implications for practice. Corrections Management Quarterly, 4, 60-69.
12.
Gartin, P. R. (1995). Dealing with design failures in randomized field experiments: Analytic issues regarding the evaluation of treatment effects. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 425-445.
13.
Gendreau, P. (1996). The principles of effective intervention with offenders. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional interventions that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 117-130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14.
Glaser, D. (1980). The interplay of theory, issues, policy, and data. In M. W. Kleiman & K. S. Teilmann (Eds.), Handbook of criminal justice evaluation (pp. 123-142). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
15.
Greenfield, L. A. (1993). Bureau of Justice Statistics-Princeton University study group on criminal justice performance measures. In Performance measures for the criminal justice system (NCJ-143505) (p. ii). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
16.
Harris, M. K. (1986). The goals of community sanctions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.
17.
Logan, C. (1993). Criminal justice performance measures for prisons. In Performance measures for the criminal justice system (NCJ-143505) (pp. 19-59). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
18.
MacKenzie, D. L., Brame, R., McDowall, D., & Souryal, C. (1995). Boot camp prisons and recidivism in eight states. Criminology, 33(3), 327-357.
19.
MacKenzie, D. L., & Souryal, C. (1993). Multi-site study of shock incarceration: Process evaluation. Final Report to the National Institute of Justice. College Park: University of Maryland.
20.
Maltz, M. (1984). Recidivism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
21.
Markley, G. (1994, Summer). The role of mission statements in community corrections. Perspectives, pp. 47-54.
22.
Matthews, T., Boone, H. N., & Fogg, V. (1994). Alternative outcome measures: The concept. Perspectives, 18, 11-12.
23.
Nidorf, B. (1991). “Nothing works” revisited. Perspectives, 15, 12-13.
24.
Palmer, T. (1983). The “effectiveness” issue today: An overview. Federal Probation, 46,3-10.
25.
Palmer, T. (1992). The re-emergence of correctional intervention. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
26.
Palmer, T. (1996). Programmatic and non-programmatic aspects of successful intervention: New directions for research. In A. T. Harland (Ed.), Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply (pp. 131-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
Paris, D. C., & Reynolds, J. F. (1983). The logic of policy inquiry. New York: Longman.
28.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: Harper & Row.
29.
Petersilia, J. (1993). Measuring the performance of community corrections. In Performance measures for the criminal justice system (NCJ-143505) (pp. 61-84). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
30.
Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Intensive probation and parole. In Michael Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (pp. 281-335). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Tonry, M., & Lynch, M. (1996). Intermediate sanctions. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Wright, D. T., & Mays, G. L. (1998). Correctional boot camps, attitudes, and recidivism: The Oklahoma experience. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 28(2), 71-87.
