The impact evaluation on public policies: reflections from the evaluation of the social reinsertion program in Chile
Abstract
Recently in Latin America an important number of programs focused on social reinsertion have been developed and carried out for people with conflicts with the Law. The present article covers a sequence of methodological considerations emerging from the evaluation carried out on a reinsertion program designed and applied in Chile. For that purpose, a group of conditions necessary to meet to achieve robust evidence of program performance is individualized. On the other hand, a group of specific requirements for the evaluation of reinsertion programs is pointed out, beginning with some definitions of reinsertions and different approaches that can be used to operationalize that concept verifying finally the applicability of different evaluation designs according with the specific characteristics of each evaluated Program.Keywords:
Reintegration, Impact Evaluation Methodologies, Reoccurrence, Citizen SecurityReferences
Andrews, D.; Bonta, J. and Wormith, J. (2011). The Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model. Does Adding the Good Lives Model Contribute to Effective Crime Prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 38, Nº 7, 735–755.
Arellano, B. (2010). Reinserción Comunitaria la experiencia de un recluso. Revista de Estudios Criminológicos y Penitenciarios. Gendarmería de Chile. Nº 16.
Caliendo, M. & Kopeinig, S. (2008). Some Practical Guidance For The Implementation Of Propensity Score Matching. Journal of Economic Surveys, 22(1), 31–72. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00527.x
Centro de Estudios en Seguridad Ciudadana, CESC (2012). Modelo de Medición de la Reincidencia de Adolescentes y Jóvenes Infractores de Ley. Servicio Nacional de Menores (SENAME). Gobierno de Chile.
Centro de Estudios en Seguridad Ciudadana y Fundación Paz Ciudadana, CESC-FPC (2015). Estudio Diseño Organizacional y Modelo de Gestión del Servicio Nacional de Reinserción Social. CESC - Fundación Paz Ciudadana (documento de trabajo).
Dunn, P. M. (1997). James Lind (1716–94) of Edinburgh and the treatment of scurvy. Archives of Disease in Childhood. Fetal and Neonatal Edition. https://doi.org/10.1136/fn.76.1.F64
Gerring, J. (2011). Social Science Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi. org/10.1017/CBO9781139022224
Gertler, P. J., Martínez, S., Premand, P., Rawlings, L. B. & Christel M. J., V. (2009). La evaluación de impacto en la práctica. https://doi.org/978-0-8213-8681-1
Gertler, P., Martínez, S. & Premand, P. (2017). La evaluación de impacto en la práctica. https://doi. org/978-0-8213-8681-1
Goldstein, C. E., Weijer, C., Brehaut, J. C., Fergusson, D. A., Grimshaw, J. M., Horn, A. R. & Taljaard, M. (2018). Ethical issues in pragmatic randomized controlled trials: A review of the recent literature identifies gaps in ethical argumentation. BMC Medical Ethics, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0253-x
Holland, P. W. & Rubin, D. B. (1988). Causal Inference in Retrospective Studies. Evaluation Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8801200301
Khandker, S., B Koolwal, G., & Samad, H. (2010). Handbook on Impact. World Bank Publications
(Vol. 41).
Wolff, N. (2000). Using randomized controlled trials to evaluate socially complex services: problems, challenges and recommendations. The Journal of Mental Health Policy and Economics. https:// doi.org/10.1002/1099-176X(200006)3:2<97::AID-MHP77>3.0.CO;2-S
Twitter