Considerable attention is paid to the continued development of quality control mechanisms in order to provide evidence of service efficacy.

Our policy is that programme evaluation is conducted by an external evaluator.

Pillars published research and evaluation documents are:

1.    Pukeko Research Ltd (2012) "Close to Home" - A Family Reintegration Programme
2.    Pukeko Research Ltd (2012) "Formative Evaluation of the Activities Centre at Christchurch Men's Prison"
3.    Gordon E (2012) "Formative Evaluation of the Together Programme" - Part II
4.    Gordon E, (2011) Evaluation Report 1: Together Programme - a partnering for schools mentoring pilot
5.    Network Research (2011); "Causes of and solutions to inter-generational crime:"  - The final report of a study of the children of prisoners
6.    Network Research (2009); "Invisible Children"  - First year report: A study of the children of prisoners
7.    Gordon, E 2009  (2009); Evaluation of New Beginnings Programme, Stage 3
8.    Gordon, E (2006); Evaluation of the New Beginnings Programme, Stage 2
9.    Gordon, E (2005); Evaluation of the New Beginnings Programme, Stage 1
10.  Department of Corrections (2005); Reintegrative Support Services
11.  Pilot Programme Evaluation of Programme Outcomes
12.  Department of Corrections (2002); Evaluation of Reintegrative Support  Services Pilot Programmes
13.  PriceWaterhouseCoopers (1998); Appraisal, Organisation Review and SWOT Analysis
14.  MacGibbon, L (1997); Pillars an Evaluation
15.  MacGibbon, L (1996); Living in the Worst of Both Worlds
16.  Crime Prevention Unit (1999); The Mentoring for Children / Youth at
       Risk Demonstration Project: Final Evaluation Report
17.  MacGibbon, L (1992); Evaluation of Pillars
18.  Stephens, M (1990); Evaluation on Pillars Incorporated

As part of our assessment and to track changes across our client base we use the following tools:

• Persister Based Child Assessment (PBCA), based on the research by Kaye McLaren, 2000
• Youth Mentor Relationship Quality (YMRQ); (Public, Private Ventures, 2002)
• Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ); (Robert Goodman, 2001)
• Family Assessment (PBFA), based on research by Kaye McLaren, 2000

Key findings from the report Reintegrative Support Services Pilot Programme Evaluation of Programme Outcomes (July 2005)

• Male offenders who participated n the programme have been re-convicted and re-imprisoned at rates below the rate of male offenders generally (7% less than the comparison group), with reductions being even grater for those male offenders who fully completed the programme (16% less than the comparison group). Females have a slightly lower rate of re-imprisonment, but a higher rate of re-conviction, although this analysis is derived from a very small sample.
• Programme providers deliver a comprehensive reintegrative service, addressing a wide range of identified reintegrative needs. In all need areas (except re-offending by other family members and social responsibility), two-thirds or more of offenders with an identified need showed some improvement or resolution in this need at exit from the programme.
• The programme contributed to improved family functioning, good parenting and care and safety of children within the offender's family / whanau. At exit 78% who completed the programme showed improvement in family functioning, 89% showed improvement or resolution in the care and safety of their children, and 89% had taken steps to improve their parenting.