DOI: 10.3886/icpsr37212
title: Evaluation of the OJJDP FY2010 Second Chance Act Juvenile Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects, 5 United States cities, 2010
title: Archival Version

description: In response to growing concerns about recidivism and the welfare of youth who return to communities from incarceration, the federal government passed the Second Chance Act (SCA) in 2008 to authorize funding to support the development, implementation, and evaluation of juvenile reentry programs (H.R. 1593, 110th Cong. 2007). Since then, more than 100 juvenile SCA awards have been made to grantees across the U.S. to improve reentry programming and outcomes for youth returning home after placement in juvenile correctional institutions (State Government Justice Center, 2017). The purpose of this evaluation was to evaluate five FY2010 juvenile SCA grantees who were funded to implement comprehensive reentry programs for high-risk youth, and to provide policymakers, practitioners, and funders with empirical evidence about the degree to which the SCA program effectively reduced recidivism and improved reintegration outcomes for youth offenders, and to inform future comprehensive juvenile reentry efforts. Specific goals of this study included: identifying strong sites for an impact evaluation; assessing the extent to which the sites successfully implemented a comprehensive and integrated model of juvenile reentry for a high-risk, high-needs population; assessing program operations and adherence to reentry principles; evaluating the impact of the SCA programs; determining the cost effectiveness of the SCA programs, and their cost-benefit in terms of crime prevented; and disseminating evaluation findings to practitioner and researcher audiences.
description: The purpose of this evaluation was to evaluate five FY2010 juvenile Second Chance Act (SCA) grantees who were funded to implement comprehensive reentry programs for high-risk youth, and to provide policymakers, practitioners, and funders with empirical evidence about the degree to which the SCA program effectively reduced recidivism and improved reintegration outcomes for youth offenders, and to inform future comprehensive juvenile reentry efforts. Specific goals of this study included: identifying strong sites for an impact evaluation; assessing the extent to which the sites successfully implemented a comprehensive and integrated model of juvenile reentry for a high-risk, high-needs population; assessing program operations and adherence to reentry principles; evaluating the impact of the SCA programs; determining the cost effectiveness of the SCA programs, and their cost-benefit in terms of crime prevented; and disseminating evaluation findings to practitioner and researcher audiences.
description: Baseline interviews and 6-month follow up interviews were conducted with youth being released to either the Second Chance Act (SCA) or comparison sites. To be eligible to participate in an interview a youth must have been incarcerated and returning home (or had already returned home) to either the SCA or the comparison site, and have a parent or guardian assent to their participation in the study. All youth were offered a $50 stipend for their participation in the study. In Oklahoma, the baseline interview was conducted with youth approximately 30 days prior to release from a correctional facility; in VA, negotiation with the Department of Juvenile Justice led to baseline interviews being conducted shortly after a youth was released. Follow-up interviews were conducted between 5 and 8 months following release. Baseline interviews concerned both the youth's pre-incarceration history as well as the incarceration experience. Follow-up interviews concerned the reentry experience as well as experiences and outcomes during the 6 months following release. Some eligible youth could not be interviewed during the baseline period, but were successfully recruited for the 6-month interview, and one longer comprehensive interview was completed at that time to cover the content of both interviews.
description: The research team recommends users use ATT weight variables in the Oklahoma Admin and Virginia Admin datasets for analysis.
description: Datasets: DS0: Study-Level Files DS1: Field Interview Data DS2: Oklahoma Admin Data DS3: Virginia Admin Data
description: Juvenile offenders in Tidewater, VA and Tulsa, OK. Smallest Geographic Unit: City
description: face-to-face interview