DOI: 10.3886/icpsr36748
title: Multi-site National Institute of Justice Evaluation of Second Chance Act Reentry Courts in Seven States, 2012-2016
title: Archival Version

description: These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.The study used a multi-method approach including 1. a process evaluation in all eight sites involving yearly site visits from 2012 to 2014 with key stakeholder interviews, observations, and participant focus groups; 2. a prospective impact evaluation (in four sites) including interviews at release from jail or prison and at 12 months after release (as well as oral swab drug tests) with reentry court participants and a matched comparison group; 3. a recidivism impact evaluation (in seven sites) with a matched comparison group tracking recidivism for 2 years post reentry court entry and 4. a cost-benefit evaluation (in seven sites) involving a transactional and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach. Final administrative data were collected through the end of 2016.This collection includes four SPSS data files: "interview_archive2.sav" with 746 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC_Archive_File_3.sav" with 518 variables and 3,710 cases, "Interview Data1.sav" with 1,356 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC Admin Data File.sav" with 517 variables and 3,710 cases, and three SPSS syntax files: "Interview Syntax.sps", "archive_2-17.sps", and "NESCCARC Admin Data Syntax.sps".
description: This study of eight SCA reentry courts across the U.S. had four goals:
Describe the SCA reentry courts through a comprehensive process evaluation; 
Determine the effectiveness of the SCA reentry courts at reducing recidivism and improving individual outcomes through a rigorous impact evaluation; 
Conduct a cost-benefit analysis; 
Contribute to the development of a "true" reentry court model;
description: The evaluation was performed in two phases. Phase 1 addressed Goal 1 of this evaluation (the process study) and involved annual site visits to examine program policies and practices as well as an evaluability assessment to determine potential quasi-experimental impact designs in each site. Phase 2 addressed Goals 2 through 4 and involved the collection of administrative data; selection of a comparison group for each site; implementation of a longitudinal impact study involving in-depth interviews with program participants and comparison group members in four sites; and the collection of cost data to calculate the costs of the programs and their outcomes/impacts.
description: This collection includes four SPSS data files: "interview_archive2.sav" with 746 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC_Archive_File_3.sav" with 518 variables and 3,710 cases, "Interview Data1.sav" with 1,356 variables and 412 cases, "NESCCARC Admin Data File.sav" with 517 variables and 3,710 cases, and three SPSS syntax files: "Interview Syntax.sps", "archive_2-17.sps", and "NESCCARC Admin Data Syntax.sps".
description: Response Rates: 
					Delaware-72 percent; Missouri-85 percent; Ohio-65 percent; Texas-96 percent; All Interviewees-81 percent
description: Datasets: 
					
						DS1: Dataset
description: record abstracts
description: face-to-face interview
description: The prospective interview study included individuals enrolled in the reentry court or standard post-release supervision beginning in 2012. The recidivism study  samples included all reentry court participants who had entered the seven programs since the implementation of BJA grant activities and could be tracked for at least 1 year after entry--regardless of final program status--along with a comparison group of similar individuals who received treatment as usual in the jurisdiction.
				   		Smallest Geographic Unit: County, State
description: The reentry courts provided a list of their participants and associated data. Those individuals served as the treatment group. To obtain a comparison group, data on individuals recently released from prison or jail (and other criteria depending on the nature of the reentry court) from the relevant agencies, such as the Department of Corrections, State Police, or court system were used. Propensity scores were then used to either match or weight the samples to ensure they were similar. Full details can be found in the report included in the files submitted.