Abstract
Reentry programming for offenders has increased considerably since the passage of the Second Chance Act in 2008. This study presents findings from the implementation and process phases of a multi-stage program evaluation of two Second Chance Act funded initiatives in Delaware County, Ohio. Two distinct programs, one for offenders diagnosed with co-occurring mental health and substance abuse disorders and another for substance dependent offenders with minor children, were examined using a mixed-methodological research design incorporating process and outcome phases. Process findings focus on determinations of program fidelity and adherence to evidence-based practices. Discussion centers on the role of process evaluation in assessments of intervention effectiveness and the importance of establishing program fidelity prior to outcome analysis.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott, P. J., Weller, S. B., Delaney, H. D., & Moore, B. A. (1999). Community reinforcement approach in the treatment of opiate addicts. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 24(1), 17–30.
Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 33, 5–18.
Brewster, D. R., & Sharp, S. F. (2002). Educational programs and recidivism in Oklahoma: Another look. The Prison Journal, 82(3), 314–334.
Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation intensity. Implementation Science, 2(40).
Esbensen, F.-A., Matsuda, K. N., Taylor, T. J., & Peterson, D. (2011). Multimethod strategy for assessing program fidelity: The national evaluation of the revised GREAT program. Evaluation Review, 35, 14–39.
Esbensen, F.-A., Peterson, D., Taylor, T. J., & Osgood, D. W. (2012). Results from a multi-site evaluation of the GREAT program. Justice Quarterly, 29, 125–151.
Howells, K., & Day, A. (2006). Affective determinants of treatment engagement in violent offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(2), 174–186.
Krienert, J. L., & Fleisher, M. S. (2001). Gang membership as a proxy for social deficiencies: A study of Nebraska inmates. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 47–58.
Latessa, J. (2004). The challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidence-based practice. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 547–560.
Lowenkamp, C., Latessa, E., & Hollsinger, J. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 Offenders and 97 Correctional Programs? Crime and Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93.
Lynch, J. P., & Furstenau, C. M. (2008). The Auglaize county transition program. American Jails, 22(5) (November/December).
Mears, D. P. (2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Melde, C., Esbensen, F.-A., & Tusinski, K. (2006). Addressing program fidelity using onsite observations and program provider descriptions of program delivery. Evaluation Review, 30, 714–740.
Meyers, R. J., Miller, W. R., Hill, D. E., & Tonigan, J. S. (1999). Community Reinforcement and Family Training (CRAFT): Engaging unmotivated drug users in treatment. Journal of Substance Abuse, 10(3), 291–308.
Meyers, R. J., & Squires, D. D. (2001). Community reinforcement approach: A guideline developed for the behavioral health recovery management project. Springfield, IL: Illinois Department of Human Services.
Meyers, R. J., Villanueva, M., & Smith, J. E. (2005). The community reinforcement approach: History and new directions. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 19(3), 247–260.
Miller, J. M. (2014). Identifying collateral effects of offender reentry programming through evaluative fieldwork. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 41–58.
Miller, J. M., Koons-Witt, B. A., & Ventura, H. E. (2004). Barriers to evaluating drug treatment behind bars: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 1.
Miller, H. V., & Miller, J. M. (2010). Community in-reach through jail reentry: Findings from a quasi-experimental design. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 893–910.
Miller, J. M., & Miller, H. V. (2015). Rethinking program fidelity for criminal justice. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 339–349.
Miller, J. M., Miller, H. V., & Barnes, J. C. (2016). Outcome evaluation of a family-based jail reentry program for substance abusing offenders. The Prison Journal, 96, 53–78.
Miller, H. V., Tillyer, R., & Miller, J. M. (2012). Recognizing the need for prisoner input in correctional research: Observations from an in-prison DWI reduction program evaluation. The Prison Journal, 92, 274–289.
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). (2007). Principles of drug abuse treatment for criminal justice populations: A research-based guide (2nd ed.). Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health.
Rohrbach, L. A., Gunning, M., Ping, S., & Sussman, S. (2010). The Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND) dissemination trial: Implementation fidelity and immediate outcomes. Prevention Science, 11(1), 77–88.
Roman, C. G., Wolff, A., Correa, V., & Buck, J. (2007). Assessing intermediate outcomes of a faith-based residential prisoner reentry program. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(2), 199–215.
Steadman, H. J., & Veysey, B. M. (1997). Providing services for jail inmates with mental disorders. National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief (NCJ 162207). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W. M., Foote, F. H., Perez-Vidal, A., & Hervis, O. (1983). Conjoint versus one-person family therapy: Some evidence for the effectiveness of conducting family therapy through one person. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 889–899.
Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W. M., Foote, F., Perez-Vidal, A., & Hervis, O. (1986). Conjoint versus one-person family therapy: Further evidence for the effectiveness of conducting family therapy through one person with drug-abusing adolescents. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 395–397.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Visher, C. A. (2006). Effective reentry programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 299–302.
Walters, G. D. (1999). Short-term outcome of inmates participating in the lifestyle change program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(3), 322–337.
Welsh, W. N., McGrain, P., Salamatin, N., & Zajac, G. (2007). Effects of prison drug treatment on inmate misconduct: A repeated measures analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 600–615.
White, M. D., Saunders, J., Fisher, C., & Mellow, J. (2012). Exploring inmate reentry in a local jail setting: Implications for outreach, service use, and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 58(1), 124–146.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Grant Nos. 2011-RW-BX-0008 and 2011-RN-BX0004. The points of view and conclusions are those of the authors and do not reflect the official positions of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Justice Program Fidelity Scale
Site:______________ Rater 1 initials:_____ Rater 2 initials: _____ Date:______________
Rater 1 | Rater 2 | Consensus | Actual Value | |
Adherence (0/1) | ||||
Intake screening | ||||
Intake timeliness | ||||
Treatment plan components | ||||
Caseload compliance | ||||
Individualized service plans | ||||
Dosage | ||||
Adherence total: | ||||
Exposure (0/1) | ||||
Contact frequency (hours per day) | ||||
Duration; Program length | ||||
Exposure total: | ||||
Delivery quality (coded 1–5)a | ||||
Staff qualifications | ||||
Counselor/staff attitude | ||||
Counselor/staff continued training | ||||
Delivery quality total: | ||||
Participant engagement (coded 1–5)b | ||||
Participant attitude | ||||
Participant involvement | ||||
Participation barriers (reverse code) | ||||
Participant engagement total: | ||||
Program differentiation (reverse coded 1–5)c | ||||
Program size fluctuation | ||||
Program budget fluctuation | ||||
Caseload fluctuation | ||||
Continuity of staffing (coded 1–5) | ||||
Continuity of setting (coded 1–5) | ||||
Program differentiation total: | ||||
Total fidelity score | ||||
An earlier version of this scale was conceptualized through support from Grant No. 2010-RT-BX-0103 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice with assistance from Co-Principal Investigator, Dr. Rob Tillyer
aHigher scores indicative of greater delivery quality
bHigher scores indicative of greater participant engagement
cHigher scores indicative of lower program differentiation
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Miller, J.M., Miller, H.V. Validating Program Fidelity: Lessons from the Delaware County Second Chance Initiatives. Am J Crim Just 41, 112–123 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-015-9325-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-015-9325-3