criminal justice policy analysis and evaluation

The Importance of Appropriate Evaluation Models
Criminal justice policy and program evaluation is not a monolithic or standardized process. In other words there is no one size fits all approach to policy evaluation and assessment. Evaluation of policies designed to reduce domestic violence will be sharply different from those used to reduce rates of recidivism among juveniles. Therefore, when recommending a policy evaluation model, analysts should take into account situational variables, and especially the methods used to design and implement the applicable criminal justice policy. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA, n.d.) describes evaluation in general as “a systematic, objective process for determining the success of a policy or program,” in order to determine whether that policy or program is achieving the goals it set out to achieve, or whether the program or policy has proven to be cost-effective (p. 1). In order to perform any type of policy evaluation, analysts first need to take into consideration the defined policy objectives, the appropriate measurements or indicators, and data collection and analysis methods (National Criminal Justice Association, n.d.).. The most common evaluation models include needs assessments, program theory assessments, process evaluations, impact evaluations, and efficiency analyses (“Criminal Justice Program Evaluation,” n.d.). While all of these models are important can be used in conjunction with one another, the most relevant and applicable evaluation model is the impact evaluation. Impact evaluations remain relevant and applicable because they offer quantifiable data that can be extrapolated for various purposes.
Impact Evaluation
Impact evaluation is “the most common form” of criminal justice policy or program assessment (“Criminal Justice Program Evaluation,” n.d., p. 5). One reason why impact evaluations are common is that they yield quantifiable evidence that is helpful for determining whether criminal justice funds are being spent in an appropriate manner. Another reason why impact evaluations are appropriate is that they bridge the gap between theory and practice, showing that the policy or program actually does achieve measurable outcomes in accordance with the political or sociological goals. Moreover, the impact evaluation tends to accommodate for numerous types of policy designs. As Janeksela (1977) points out, “when there is a conflict between the evaluation design and the needs of the criminal justice system, the design will have to be changed,” (p. 1). Impact evaluation takes into account prior research such as needs assessment, and shows whether or not a policy fulfills those needs. If the policy fulfills identifiable needs, then it may be renewed, expanded, or strengthened. If the policy has failed to address underlying needs, then the policy may be changed based on the results of the program evaluation.
Impact evaluations are also referred to as outcome assessments, which also provide the added advantage of revealing any unexpected or “unintended consequences, both positive and negative,” (BJA, n.d., p. 3). For example, a policy designed to reduce recidivism might have an unintended consequence of boosting the local economy due to the reduced rates of incarceration, or the same policy might lead to increased rates of substance use in the community. Whatever the consequences of the criminal justice policy, an impact or outcome evaluation will offer objective data that can be used to make the program or policy more effective and more cost-effective, too. For example, an impact evaluation of domestic violence policy focuses on the variable of empowerment, providing a framework whereby future policy analysts can adapt the same approach to anti-domestic violence programs in other jurisdictions (Cattaneo & Goodman, 2015). An impact evaluation uses both qualitative and quantitative methods, and can include an ecological or systems approach to measuring criminal justice outcomes that are not exclusively focused on factors that can be misleading like arrest statistics.



References
Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA, n.d.). Guide to program evaluation. https://www.bja.gov/evaluation/guide/bja-guide-program-evaluation.pdf
Cattaneo, L. B., & Goodman, L. A. (2015). What is empowerment anyway? A model for domestic violence practice, research, and evaluation. Psychology of Violence, 5(1), 84-94.
“Criminal Justice Program Evaluation,” (n.d.). http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/research-methods/program-evaluation/
Janeksela, G.M. (1977). An evaluation model for criminal justice. Criminal Justice Review 2(2): 1-11.
National Criminal Justice Association (n.d.). Program evaluation. http://www.ncjp.org/pretrial/outcome-and-performance-measures