National Institute of Justice's Evaluation of Second Chance Act Adult Reentry Courts: Program Characteristics and Preliminary Themes from Year 1

• NCJ Number: 241400
• Author(s): Christine Lindquist; Jennifer Hardison Walters; Michael Rempel; Shannon M. Carey
• Date Published: February 2013
• Length: 24 pages
• Grant Number(s): 2010-RY-BX-0001
• Agencies: NIJ-Sponsored
• Publication Type: Program/Project Evaluation

Annotation

This report presents the program characteristics and preliminary themes from the National Institute of Justice's evaluation of Second Chance Act Adult Reentry Courts.

Abstract

The Second Chance Act of 2007 authorized that funds be made available for using various approaches for improving adult and juvenile reentry efforts. One of the approaches that received funding was the reentry court model. This report presents the results of the National Institute of Justice's evaluation of Second Chance Act (SCA) Adult Reentry Courts. The evaluation had four goals: 1) describe the SCA adult reentry courts through a process evaluation; 2) determine the effectiveness of the SCA reentry courts at reducing recidivism and improving individual outcomes through an impact evaluation; 3) conduct a cost-benefit analysis; and 4) identify key reentry court components. The results presented in this report are from the first year of the evaluation process in which site visits were conducted between October 2011 and March 2012. The report also summarizes early implementation characteristics of the eight programs included in the study. Several aspects of the reentry courts discussed in the report include the origins of the reentry court, integration with established drug courts, and mechanisms for jurisdictional authority. The report also presents information on the target population and enrollment for each of the eight reentry courts in the study. In addition, the report highlights program components and services for each of the eight reentry courts. Some of these services are court monitoring and responses, supervision, drug testing, case management, and family involvement. Finally, the next steps of the process evaluation are discussed. 3 exhibits, 2 figures, and 10 references