U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Routinizing Evaluation in Corrections (From Criminal Justice in Minnesota - Proceedings, P 35-47 - See NCJ-84559)

NCJ Number
84563
Author(s)
C A Rhodes
Date Published
Unknown
Length
13 pages
Annotation
The paper explains the nature and use of 'routinized' evaluation in corrections, followed by discussions of the state-of-the-art and the steps involved in designing this type of evaluation system.
Abstract
Routinized evaluation is the capability of a correctional agency to continuously collect, store, analyze, and present data related to program effectiveness to aid correctional decisionmaking. The data usually cover the numbers and types of program clients, the types of problems they present, the services being offered and their costs, and the outcomes of correctional programs. Routinized evaluations enable correctional decisionmakers to obtain timely data to make informed choices. Few correctional agencies have routinized evaluation systems. The systems which exist are generally tied to some form of automated offender-based tracking system, although routinized evaluation need not be tied to a computer. Some systems have been abandoned because of cost overruns or at the choice of managers. Design problems, such as excessive volume and delayed reports, have hampered the use of other systems. The Minnesota Community Corrections Association has developed a model for routinized evaluations. Its component systems measure the progress of correctional clients receiving services, client outcomes and costs 90 days after program discharge, and results 1 year after service provision. The system's eight elements are the program influencers, the mission statement, admission criteria, program structure, goal statements, specific admission criteria, services provided, and clients served. A routinized evaluation system can be established at relatively little cost and should be developed with program staff participation. Seven references and an illustrated system model are provided.