Proof reading and correction

User Generated

havdhrcvpxfreivprf

Business Finance

Description

First thing I want you to do before making the corrections on this paper read those attachments and the assignment instruction to see if everything is follow well. Do what ever corrections you feel need but do not go over 400 words. you cand replace if you feel important.

Identify and discuss some methods for reporting evaluation findings, including strategies for maximizing utilization and benefit to the program, stakeholders, and community. What are some of the ethical considerations with regard to interpretation and reporting?

Answer those questions According to those attachments I send to you.

You must answer the questions thoroughly and cite all relevant assigned readings for those attachments (using APA format). In a separate page send me the links I want to verify them.

. DO NOT refer to or incorporate information from extremely unreliable sources (e.g., Wikipedia, TMZ, and The Onion).

Posts must be well written, free of grammatical errors, relevant to the topic, and demonstrate critical thinking and analysis.

Required Reading:

Vito, G. F. & Higgins, G. E. (2015). Practical Program Evaluation for Criminal Justice.

Waltham, MA: Elsevier.

Assignments must be written and typed following the guidelines in the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (APA manual), and must be written at college level, with good sentence structure and good syntax. Students must also adhere to the professional guidelines for the use of copyrighted literature and commercially produced materials, as well as materials generated by colleagues and friends and information collected from conferences and presentations.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Running Head: Methods of reporting evaluation findings Methods of reporting evaluation findings Introduction 1 Methods of reporting evaluation findings 2 How the presentation of the evaluation finding will be conducted is of key significance as it will determine on the implementation strategy of the evaluation program. The method of presenting an evaluation finding is mainly determined by the nature of the audience being addressed and should meet the specific needs of the audience. Methods of reporting the evaluation finding 1. Written report Is the official reporting of the evaluation finding and are of a formal format. Vito & Haggins (2015, p. 136) echo Synder, who asserts that these reports should be presented in a manner that is usable and readily understandable or clear to the practitioners. The report should provide enough information and advice on what is to be done, and offer any available alternatives too. It is essential to the peer reviewers and practitioners. 2. Face-to-face (Verbal) This is an active mode of presentation. According to Vito & Haggins (2015, p.136), the information here should be succinct. The advantage of this method is that the stakeholders and practitioners are readily involved, and this involvement will maximumly benefit the community and stakeholders. 3. Electronic presentation This is through use of TV, radio, projectors, and videos (Wall & Solutions, 2014). In this category, only key research messages are projected to the audience. This works well for all setting and audience. Also, the use of websites will help the information reach a larger audience. 4. Social media Methods of reporting evaluation findings 3 Mostly deemed informal and findings are shared through social platforms such as a blog, and Twitter (Wall & Solutions, 2014). The key message here is quickly shared with a large audience. The maximum utilization of this program can be enhanced through ensuring that the collected data and information by the researchers should be easily understandable and handed over to the practitioners, and these two teams are encouraged to communicate (Vito & Haggins, 2015, p.136). Also, according to Vito & Haggin (2015), the stakeholders should be identified, ensure the program is relevant to the needs of the target group, and encourage the users to be committed to the program. In regard to interpretation and reporting, it is ethical to identify the target group and their needs and report to them using the appropriate method that they easily understand (Trevisan & Walser, 2014). References Methods of reporting evaluation findings 4 Higgins, G. E., & Vito, G. F. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Routledge. Trevisan, M. S., & Walser, T. M. (2014). Evaluability assessment: Improving evaluation quality and use. Sage Publications. Wall, J. E., & Solutions, S. (2014). Program evaluation model 9-step process. Sage Solutions. http://region11s4. lacoe. edu/attachments/article/34, 287(29), 209. Book Cover Here Chapter 9 Reporting and Using Evaluations Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 1 Reporting and Using Evaluations    Report must be clearly and specifically communicated Information must be given to those who can use it The aim of the report must be to provide information and advice on what should be done and which alternatives are worth consideration Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 2 Abstract or Program Summary  Present the purpose of the program, how the evaluation was conducted, and a summary of research findings Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 3 Presenting the Theory Supporting the Program  Identify and describe theory that will serve as the basis for the program and the expectation that it will have the desired impact Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 4 Presenting the Process Evaluation     Emphasis is on how the host organization served as the basis for the implementation of the program The evaluator should describe program implementation Describe program destruction and delivery in detail Provide a description of how services were delivered Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 5 Presenting the Process Evaluation  The process evaluation should include:       Relevant description on program operations Consider the management of the program Describe and assess how the desired service was provided by the program Must tap the opinions of program staff and clients Describe the nature of the client population Identify and frankly present management issues Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 6 Presenting the Process Evaluation  The process evaluation should include:   How implementation issues affect service delivery Assessing service delivery inovlves observing and describing how it was delivered by program staff Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 7 Presenting the Impact Evaluation    This is the meat of the evaluation Conclusions are reached and supporting data are presented The summary is a crucial aspect of the report because it is the first section consulted by readers Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 Factors Influencing the Use of Program Evaluation Results     Researchers focus on analysis to determine “what works” in criminal justice Practitioners are looking for language to tell them how to do it Criminology needs to get both data and information into the hands of policy makers and administrators Must identify stakeholders in the process Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 9 Factors Influencing the Use of Program Evaluation Results  “Collaborative Evaluation” assumes that active ongoing engagement between evaluators and program staff will result in stronger evaluation designs, enhanced data collection and analysis, and results that stakeholders understand and use Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 10 Table 9.1 Focus of Process and Impact Evaluations Process Evaluation Focus Inputs Results Personnel Arrests Equipment People trained Expenditures Barriers installed Other resources Other tasks accomplished Impact Evaluation Focus Outcomes Crimes reduced Fear abated Accidents reduced Other reductions in problems Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 11 Table 9.2 Interpreting Results of Process and Impact Evaluations Process Evaluation Results Impact Evaluation Results Response Implemented as Planned Problem A. Evidence that declined and no the response other likely caused the cause decline Problem did not decline Response Not Implemented as Planned C. Suggests that the response was accidentally effective or that other factors may have caused the decline B. Evidence that D. Little is the response learned was ineffective Copyright © 2014, Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved 12 GENNARO F. VITO & GEORGE E. HIGGINS • Examines major evaluation types (as well as the benefits, concerns, and constraints of each), including needs evaluations, theory evaluations, process evaluations, outcome/impact evaluations, and cost-efficiency evaluations. • Defines the data points each evaluation type requires, and the manner in which these data can be collected. • Demonstrates how different types of evaluations can be used together to provide clear information regarding a program’s overall performance level. • Cites and makes use of actual, real-world policy evaluations and vetted programs. When closely examined, many of the most prominent criminal justice policies to emerge over the last 30 years are found wanting. High rates of incarceration and recidivism reflect the flaws of many contemporary crime prevention approaches. It’s becoming increasingly clear that policy need not just be executed, but properly evaluated. Practical Program Evaluation for Criminal Justice describes applicable, step-by-step instructions on how to determine whether an initiative is truly necessary prior to its adoption (thus eliminating the risk of wasting resources), as well as how to accurately gauge its effectiveness during initial rollout stages. This is achieved through the gradual introduction of basic data analysis procedures and statistical techniques, which, once mastered, can prove or disprove a program’s worth and make for an improved criminal justice system. Practical Program Evaluation for Criminal Justice provides the knowledge and tools needed to successfully apply the principles of fiscal responsibility, accountability, and evidence-based practice to criminal justice reform plans. Gennaro F. Vito is a Distinguished University Scholar and professor in the Department of Justice Administration at the University of Louisville, where he has a faculty appointment in the Administrative Officer’s Course of the Southern Police Institute. He holds a Ph.D. in public administration from The Ohio State University. He is a past President and Fellow of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and received its Bruce Smith Sr. Award in 2012. His research interests are concerned with criminal justice policy analysis and program evaluation and police management. George E. Higgins is a Professor in the Department of Justice Administration at the University of Louisville where he also serves as the Ph.D. Program Coordinator. He received his Ph.D. in Criminology from Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 2001. He has published more than 100 journal articles and book chapters primarily in the areas of criminological theory testing, racial profiling, and cybercrime. In 2009, he was awarded the Coramae Richey Mann Leadership Award, which is the top award from the Minority and Women’s Section of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences for research and leadership in race and ethnicity research. He is the past editor of the American Journal of Criminal Justice and the current editor of The Journal of Criminal Justice Education. Criminal Justice | Public Policy PRACTICAL PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE An applicable, step-by-step explanation of how to conduct credible criminal justice program evaluations and improve the quality and effectiveness of the criminal justice system. VITO • HIGGINS PRACTICAL PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISBN 978-1-4557-7770-9 9 781455 777709 Routledge www.routledge.com PRACTICAL PROGRAM EVALUATION FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE GENNARO F. VITO & GEORGE E. HIGGINS PRACTICAL PROGRAM E VA L U AT I O N F O R CRIMINAL JUSTICE Page Intentionally Left Blank PRACTICAL PROGRAM E VA L U AT I O N F O R CRIMINAL JUSTICE GENNARO F. VITO GEORGE E. HIGGINS First published 2015 by Anderson Publishing Published 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2015 Taylor & Francis. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any infor mation storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Notices No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use of operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility. Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Application Submitted British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN-13: 978-1-4557-7770-9 (pbk) Dedication To the Vito and Higgins families. Page Intentionally Left Blank CONTENTS Digital Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Chapter 1 Getting Started with Program Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Administrator and Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Program Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Evidence-Based Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Meta-Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Campbell Collaboration (Crime and Justice Group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Chapter 2 Planning a Program Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Problem-Oriented Policing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Planning an Evaluation Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Logic Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Politics of Evaluation Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Ethical Issues in Evaluation Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Chapter 3 Needs Assessment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Definition of Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Problems with Needs Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 vii viii CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Chapter 4 Theory-Driven Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 Evaluability Assessment Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Describing and Producing Program Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 Analyzing Program Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Additional Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Chapter 5 Process Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Process Evaluation: Program Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 Process Evaluation: Monitoring Conduct of Evaluation Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Process Evaluation: Use of Qualitative Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Process Evaluation Assessment: Evidence-Based Correctional Program Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Chapter 6 Outcome Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Classic Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 To Experiment or not to Experiment? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Quasi-Experimental Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Before-and-After Design (One Group Pre-Test, Post-Test Design) . . . . 91 Question of Causation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 CONTENTS Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Chapter 7 Cost-efficiency Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Limits of Cost Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Chapter 8 Measurement and Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Chapter 9 Reporting and Using Evaluations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 Review of Operation CeaseFire Chicago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Factors Influencing the Use of Program Evaluation Results . . . . . . . . 136 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Chapter 10 Looking Ahead: A Call to Action in Evaluation Research . . . . 141 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Point 1: Use the Best Possible Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 Point 2: Evaluators must get Involved in the Very Beginning of the Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142 ix x CONTENTS Point 3: Evaluators must Include Some Measure of Cost in their Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 Point 4: Evaluation Leads to the Development of Evidence-Based Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Point 5: Get out into the Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 Point 6: Prepare to Partner with Practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145 Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 Discussion Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 DIGITAL ASSETS Interactive resources can be accessed for free by registering at www.routledge.com/cw/vito For the Instructor ● ● ● Test bank: Compose, customize, and deliver exams using an online assessment package in a free Windows-based authoring tool that makes it easy to build tests using the unique multiple-choice and true or false questions created for Practical Program Evaluation for Criminal Justice. What’s more, this authoring tool allows you to export customized exams directly to Blackboard, WebCT, eCollege, Angel, and other leading systems. All test bank files are also conveniently offered in Word format. PowerPoint lecture slides: Reinforce key topics with focused PowerPoint slides that provide a perfect visual outline with which to augment your lecture. Each individual book chapter has its own dedicated slideshow. Instructor’s guides: Design your course around customized learning objectives, discussion questions, and other instructor tools. xi Page Intentionally Left Blank PREFACE Job training in prison, rehabilitation programming, or policing tactics are all organized ways that individuals or organizations attempt to achieve their goals in criminal justice. A substantial amount of resources and effort result in a number of services and products that help those involved with criminal justice to meet the needs of society. The criminal justice system includes programs, facilities, and policies to help individuals lead fruitful, satisfying, healthier, or safer lives. Primarily, those involved with the criminal justice system have needs that are being met through publicly funded efforts. These efforts are called programs. The methods that are used to plan, monitor, or improve programming are the basis of program evaluation. The evaluation methods in this book apply not only to criminal justice, but to public and private agencies and for-profit organizations. Management is a component of the success of a criminal justice program. Attempts to improve productivity or employee morale all require good planning techniques, feedback on the impact of the plan, and the utilization of the feedback. This book and the examples within reflect publicly funded programming, and the principles of program evaluation have been widely used in criminal justice. The book is arranged in a manner reflecting all of the pieces of an evaluation. Chapter 1 provides the basic definitions of the book. Chapter 2 provides the basics of planning a program evaluation, and the issues that an evaluator needs to be aware of when conducting an evaluation. Chapter 3 provides the foundation of a needs evaluation. The book then shifts into developing an understanding of the underlying theory of the program. Chapter 4 is focused on theory evaluation. Chapter 5 moves the reader through the different parts of a process evaluation. Chapter 6 focuses on an outcomes and impact evaluation. Chapter 7 helps the reader understand the issues involved in a costefficiency evaluation. In Chapter 8 the reader gets some perspective on how measurement and statistics are used in program evaluations. Chapter 9 provides the reader with an overview of writing a report and the uses of an evaluation. Chapter 10 provides a call to action in criminal justice program evaluation. We wrote this book in the hope that improved evaluation will lead to more effective and efficient programming in criminal justice. We give all students this charge. Gennaro F. Vito and George E. Higgins University of Louisville xiii Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION Keywords systematic review Maryland Report meta-analysis Campbell Collaboration (Crime and Justice Group) CHAPTER OUTLINE Introduction 1 Administrator and Evaluator 2 Strengths and Weaknesses of Program Evaluation Evidence-Based Practices 5 Maryland Report 6 3 “What Works” 6 “What’s Promising” 7 “What Doesn’t Work” 8 Meta-Analysis 9 Campbell Collaboration (Crime and Justice Group) Summary 12 Discussion Questions 13 References 13 12 Program evaluation is the systematic assessment of the operation and/ or outcomes of a program or policy, compared to a set of implicit or explicit standards, as a means of contributing to the improvement of the program or policy. —Carol Weiss (1998) Introduction The aim of program evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. In this book, we are interested in the effectiveness of crime prevention programs, whether they are aimed at individuals (treatment of offenders or victims, prosecution of career criminals) 1 2 Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION or communities (crime prevention programs), and the operations of the components of the criminal justice system (police, courts, corrections—both juvenile and adult). The measurement of efficiency is the key problem faced by an evaluation researcher. Accountability can only be established if the evaluation measures are valid indicators of performance. Of course, the measures must also be readily available. Evaluation of crime programs is a significant exercise that can have a direct impact on society. Effective crime programs are vitally needed to deal with the crime problem and all the facets of public safety, such as rising crime rates, fear of crime among the public, crowded jails and prisons, and government expenditures. The pressure for information to deal with these issues is evident. The role of evaluation research in criminal justice is to provide evidence about the effects of programs and policies that are designed to enhance public safety in a manner that is accessible and informative to policy makers (Lipsey, 2005, p. 8). This text will provide an introduction to the research methods and guidelines necessary to conduct a successful evaluation. Administrator and Evaluator As Adams (1975, p. 5) has indicated, there are two significant actors in the evaluation process: the program administrator and the evaluator. The administrator must be committed to research and the creation of an organizational climate that encourages the production, reporting, and use of the findings of the evaluation. The evaluator must guide the conduct of the research process from beginning to end: its structure and methodology, use of valid measures of performance, and maintaining the balance between theory and practical, applied policy implications of the results. These two actors must work together and communicate well to produce a valid and reliable program evaluation. Each has different sources of expertise: the administrator knows what the program was designed to do and how it should operate, and the evaluator has methodological skills and knows how to design accurate research projects. Suchman (1974, p. 5) identified three major aspects of the demand for evaluation research: ● The social problem (in our case, crime). ● The service agencies (the components of the criminal justice system). ● The public (who seek protection from crime). Again, the emphasis is on the determination of the worth of programs and policies designed to prevent crime. Of course, this is why the term evaluation is so pertinent. In this text, we will be concerned Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION with the determination of the research methods and techniques that can accurately assess the value of a crime program. Monitoring is necessary to establish accountability for program results. Program evaluation informs the monitoring process. Traditionally, such monitoring assumes two forms: external and internal. Public agencies, like those in the criminal justice system, are externally accountable to political authorities and must regularly report to them about activities and processes. Internally, criminal justice agencies must provide useful, decision-oriented information on the program compliance of their facilities to flag problems before they become crises so that timely adaptations can be implemented (Sylvia & Sylvia, 2012, p. 25). Ultimately, evaluation research can inform and improve the operations of criminal justice programs and enhance service delivery. Strengths and Weaknesses of Program Evaluation The evaluation program is both a political and scientific process. The two issues are tied together inextricably. The scientific validity of the study colors and determines the value and objectivity of the research findings and their policy implications. This is “applied” research in that the primary objective of program evaluation is to determine whether the crime prevention program is reaching its goals—defined and desired results. Evaluation research is different from other research in seven basic ways (Weiss, 1998, pp. 6–8): 1. Use for decision making: The results of evaluation research are designed with use in mind. The evaluation should provide a basis for decision making in the future and provide information to determine whether a program should be continued and expanded or terminated. 2. Program-derived questions: The research questions are derived from the goals of the program and its operations and are defined by the evaluator alone. The core of the study is administrative and operational: Is the program accomplishing what it is designed to do? Is it reaching its “target population”—that is, the clients that the program was supposed to serve? Does the program make effective and efficient use of its resources, both physical and financial? 3. Judgmental quality: Objectivity requires that the evaluator focuses on whether the program is achieving its desired goals. It is imperative that these goals are stated in a clear and measurable fashion that accurately documents effective performance. 3 4 Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION 4. Action setting: The most important thing going on is the program, not the research. The program administrator and staff control access to information, records, and their clients. The research must deal with this reality and construct research designs that are feasible in the real-world setting. 5. Role conflicts: The administrator’s priority is providing program services, which often makes him or her unresponsive to the needs of the evaluation. Typically, the administrator believes strongly in the value and worth of the program services. The judgmental nature of the findings and the establishment of accountability are often viewed as a threat to both the program and the administrator personally. The possibility of friction between the program and research and the administrator and evaluator is almost inevitable. Programs are often tied to both the ego and professional reputation of the administrator and staff. Some programs (e.g., Drug Abuse Resistance Education, or D.A.R.E.) are politically attractive, and as a result have lives of their own that defy objectivity and rational assessment. Negative outcomes are not always accepted in a rational manner. In fact, one of the great ironies of evaluation research is that negative findings often fail to kill a program and positive results seldom save one. This is due to the fact that so many crime prevention programs are tied to availability of grant funding. The presence or absence of funding often determines program survival regardless of the program evaluation research findings. 6. Publication: Publication of evaluation research is vital to the establishment of a base of information on effective crime prevention programs. To be published, the research must be carefully designed and executed and the statistical analysis must be valid and accurate. 7. Allegiance: The evaluator is clearly conflicted on this aspect. He or she has obligations to the organization that funds the study, to the scientific requirements of research objectivity, and to work for the betterment of society through the determination of program effectiveness. These obligations can be contradictory and the researcher must face this reality. For example, program officials often need real-time assessments of tactics as they unfold. If the evaluator discovers problems during the process evaluation of program implementation that might jeopardize its success, then the evaluator has an obligation to alert program officials without compromising ethical concerns (Joyce & Ramsey, 2013, p. 361). Thus, research findings have utility in that they can guide future programming and crime policy. However, the results of evaluation research are not always clear and unequivocal, even when the research design is valid and vital. Findings are often small in Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION magnitude and effect and may be influenced by forces (both social and political) that cannot be isolated from those of the program itself. Thus, program administrators and policy makers typically consider the evaluation research results in combination with other factors such as public opinion, cost, availability of staff and facilities, and possible alternatives (Weiss, 1998, pp. 3–4). Determination of effectiveness is the crucial difficulty facing the evaluator. The practical problems of obtaining valid data and faithfully executing the research design often conflict with the realities of operating the crime prevention program. The evaluator never has complete control over the research process because of the need to administer the program. Program operations drive the evaluation and its design. The relationship between the needs of the evaluation and the program must be continually balanced. Ultimately, the evaluation research design must be flexible enough to address this relationship. Cooperation between the program administrator and evaluator must be firmly established and maintained. The research must be tied to the changing nature of daily program operations. The ultimate aim of evaluation research is to guide rational policy making that is based on valid research findings. The rationale is that programs that have been deemed effective will be expanded to other areas and locations and those that fail will be terminated and abandoned. In recent years, evidence-based best practices have grown significantly. Here, the emphasis is on rationality. Ideally, there should be a systematic, evidence-based foundation for criminal justice policies and programs that will increase both the accountability and effectiveness of the criminal justice system (Mears, 2010, p. 2). The search for what works has extended across all areas of the criminal justice system (both adult and juvenile)—police, courts, and corrections. Evidence-Based Practices One form of analysis that categorizes, analyzes, and summarizes the research information on a particular criminal justice policy or program is the systematic review. Systematic reviews “use rigorous methods to locate, appraise, and synthesize findings from criminal justice program evaluation studies. Typically, they give their criteria for including studies, conduct an extensive search to find them, code their key features (especially their methodology), and provide conclusions of their review” (Welch & Farrington, 2001, p. 161). For example, Braga (2001) conducted a traditional, narrative review of studies of the effects of hot-spot policing on crime. He reviewed nine studies—five randomized experiments and 5 6 Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION four nonequivalent control group quasi-experiments. Overall, the research findings revealed that focused police efforts (aggressive disorder enforcement, directed patrols, proactive arrests, and problem solving) can prevent crime in high-risk places that feature concentrations of crime without resulting in crime displacement effects. However, the study was unable to determine exactly what types of police interventions are most preferable in controlling crime at hot-spot locations. Maryland Report Probably the most pertinent example of a systematic review is the “Maryland Report.” This report was written in response to a request from the U.S. Congress to review existing research on criminal justice programs and identify those determined to be most effective (Sherman et al., 1997, p. 4). The report reviewed more than 500 crime prevention program evaluations and classified them according to both their scientific methodology and their research findings to establish a list of program effectiveness (i.e., what works, what doesn’t work, and what is promising). Their “Maryland scale of scientific methods” rested primarily on three factors (Sherman et al., 1998, p. 4): ● Control of other variables that might have been the true causes of any connection between the program and crime. ● Measurement error from such matters as loss of subjects over time or low interview response rates. ● Statistical power to detect the magnitude of program effects. The authors also classified evaluation reports according to five additional research design criteria, which are listed in Table 1.1. The methodological rigor of the research increases with each category level and enhances the validity of the findings. These concepts will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6. “What Works” The authors of the “Maryland Report” used this research-based classification system to identify programs in three categories: “What Works,” “What’s Promising,” and “What Doesn’t Work.” Several programs were designated under the category “What Works.” In particular, family and parent training was identified as an effective intervention for delinquents and adolescents at risk for delinquency. Coaching of high-risk youth in thinking skills was effective in treating high-risk youth in schools. For adults, vocational training yielded excellent results for older, male ex-offenders, thus stressing the need to provide jobs after incarceration. For convicted offenders, rehabilitation programs with risk-focused treatments demonstrated promise. Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION Table 1.1 Research Design Criteria used in the “Maryland Report” Level Attributes 1 There is a correlation between a crime prevention program and a measure of crime or crime risk factors at a single point in time. There is a temporal sequence between the program and crime or risk outcome that is clearly observed, or the presence of a comparison group without demonstrated comparability to the treatment group. The research features a comparison of two or more comparable units of analysis, one with and one without the program services. The research features a comparison between multiple units with and without the program, controlling for other factors, or using comparison units that evidence only minor differences. The research features random assignment of comparable units to program and comparison groups. 2 3 4 5 Source: Sherman et al. (1998), pp. 4–5. In addition, therapeutic community treatment programs for drugusing offenders were effective while they were incarcerated. In the area of crime prevention, nuisance abatement action on landlords was designated as a proven method of preventing drug dealing in rental housing. Extra police patrols were effective in dealing with crime “hot spots.” Monitoring by specialized police units and incarceration reduced the crime threat posed by high-risk, repeat offenders, while on-scene arrests controlled employed, domestic abusers. “What’s Promising” Under this category, the authors of the “Maryland Report” noted several programs that the research identified as having a potential impact on crime. With law enforcement, one such policy focuses on proactive drunk-driving arrests with breath testing as a method of combating driving while intoxicated. Community policing programs that provided citizen meetings to set priorities had promising results. Polite field interrogation of suspicious persons by the police had potential crime prevention aspects. Mailing of arrest warrants to domestic violence suspects who leave the scene before the police arrive provided a method of solving a problem after the incident took place. Higher numbers of police officers in cities seemed to impact the crime rate in those cities. Gang monitoring by community workers and probation and police officers provided a potential deterrent 7 8 Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION effect to prevent gang violence. A police focus on proactive arrests for carrying concealed weapons was also a potential way to prevent violence in communities. With delinquents, community-based mentoring by Big Brothers/ Big Sisters of America and community-based after-school recreation programs helped to stem delinquency. Job Corps residential training programs for at-risk youth offered an alternative, conventional lifestyle to combat delinquency. For adults, treatment alternatives such as battered women shelters, drug courts, and drug treatment in jails followed by drug testing in the community offered ways to deal with community-based problems that feed the criminal justice system. In terms of crime prevention, moving urban public housing residents to suburban homes had the potential to protect crime victims and eliminate sites that tend to attract offenders and crime. Using two clerks in already-robbed convenience stores could prevent future victimization. Target-hardening methods such as street closures, barricades, and rerouting streets were also identified as ways to prevent crime through environmental design in neighborhoods. Under both of the preceding categories, programs that had demonstrated treatment effects were identified for the purpose of spreading their impact. Communities faced with similar problems could implement these programs with a reasonable expectation that they will be effective. “What Doesn’t Work” Of course, it is also useful to identify crime programs that have proven to be ineffective, such as gun buy-back programs. In particular, the “Maryland Report” identified “sensational” popular programs that the research documented as failures. Initiatives such as D.A.R.E., correctional “boot camps” using traditional military basic training, “scared straight” programs whereby minor juvenile offenders visit adult prisons, shock probation, shock parole, residential programs for juvenile offenders using challenging experiences in rural settings (“wilderness” programs), and split sentences adding jail time to probation or parole failed to provide the deterrent effect to prevent reoffending. Similarly, home detention with electronic monitoring and intensive supervision (ISP) on probation or parole failed to prevent recidivism in community corrections. Overall, the “Maryland Report” clearly identified some myths and realities about effective crime prevention and treatment programs. The ability of the evaluation results to indicate effectiveness helps to identify programs and policies that can be expanded and have the potential to reduce crime. Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION Meta-Analysis Meta-analysis is a more methodologically sophisticated approach to reviewing the literature on a particular intervention (theory, program, or policy) than systematic review. Pratt (2010) defines both the nature and purpose of meta-analysis. It “attempts to integrate the findings of multiple independent tests of a similar hypothesis in a more objective manner by treating the empirical study as the unit of analysis” (Pratt, 2010, p. 154). He likens meta-analysis to the computation of a batting average in baseball. In meta-analysis, the effect size indicates how many hits on average are related to the dependent variable across the studies considered. In addition, the effect size can also reflect the relationships between the independent and dependent variables and across varied methodologies (i.e., longitudinal studies). In this fashion, meta-analysis provides a distinct advantage over the traditional narrative reviews of an intervention (e.g., the “Maryland Report”) where scholars review studies, select them according to rigor of their methodologies, and then interpret the importance of their findings. With regard to program evaluation, its key strategy is to identify all available studies on a policy or program, code their findings and methodologies into objective categories, and then conduct quantitative analysis of these data (Wells, 2009, p. 271). The use of meta-analysis in criminal justice research has grown over time. Wells (2009) identified 176 meta-analysis studies in criminal justice published between 1978 and 2006, with most occurring after 2000. In terms of program evaluation, the majority of these metaanalytic studies (99—56.3% of the total number) were “pragmatic” in nature—that is, assessments of the effectiveness or utility of a practical intervention (Wells, 2009, p. 280). Meta-analysis provides several distinct differences over traditional reviews of the literature. First, it can provide a single precise estimate of the effect size between two variables, thus providing an indication of the strength of the relationship between them. Second, it is possible to obtain the effect size of the relationship across different methodologies. To control for differences in rigor between methodologies, it is possible to code each study according to its methodology. Third, it makes it possible to consider a subject over time. As new studies on a subject are conducted, they can be added to the meta-analysis (Pratt, 2010, pp. 155–156). Of course, the quality of the meta-analysis is dependent on those of the studies included in the review. Pratt (2010) also addresses the question of when meta-analysis should be performed. With regard to program evaluation, there are issues here. First, a meta-analysis can clarify the relationship between 9 10 Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION an intervention and its effectiveness when published studies of it have generated “mixed” results. This is done by considering such factors as the methodological differences across studies as well as the theoretical variables under consideration. Second and most important to us, meta-analysis can assess whether a policy or program “works” across time and places by examining the literature on the intervention and generating an effect size (Pratt, 2010, p. 158). In fact, meta-analysis was invented for this particular purpose—to assess the effectiveness of various treatments and interventions in education, psychology, medicine, and interventions with offenders (Pratt, 2010, p. 160). In criminal justice, meta-analysis makes it possible to assess the effectiveness of a policy or program by synthesizing and quantifying the magnitude of effect size (Wells, 2009, p. 269). An example of this type of meta-analysis is a study of 66 published and unpublished evaluations of prison-based drug treatment programs (therapeutic communities, residential substance abuse treatment, group counseling, boot camps designed for drug offenders, and narcotic maintenance programs) (Mitchell, et al., 2007). The methodological requirements for inclusion in the analysis were (Mitchell et al., 2007, pp. 356–357): ● The evaluation utilized an experimental design (with a control group) or quasi-experimental design (that included a no-treatment comparison group). ● It measured both post-program drug use and reoffending. ● The research was conducted between 1980 and 2004. ● The evaluation reported enough information to calculate an effect size. Overall, the research results indicated that prison participants in therapeutic communities had lower rates of post-program drug use and reoffending. Thus, the research on therapeutic communities had the “most consistent evidence of treatment effectiveness” (Mitchell, 2007, p. 369). Similarly, Shaffer (2011, pp. 500–501) conducted a meta-analysis of 60 studies on drug court treatment programs. The studies were coded along five categories: 1. Study characteristics (e.g., affiliation of authors, type of publication, and publication year). 2. Sample characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age, and criminal history). 3. General program characteristics (e.g., program length, setting, adult/juvenile, year implemented, and graduation rate). 4. Methodological characteristics (e.g., study design, sample size, attrition rate, outcomes, length of follow-up, and statistical power). 5. Outcome characteristics (e.g., type of outcome and calculated effect size). Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION In addition, the data were coded under 11 categories: 1. Target population (e.g., type of charge, type of offender, and motivation). 2. Assessment (e.g., areas assessed and method of assessment). 3. Leverage (e.g., drug court model, consequences of failure, and benefits of graduation). 4. Philosophy (e.g., view toward substance abuse, primary role of judge, and flexibility of policies regarding rewards and sanctions). 5. Treatment characteristics (e.g., length of treatment, graduation rate, treatment type, treatment targets, and adolescents’ participation in Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous [AA/NA]). 6. Predictability (e.g., system of rewards and punishers and immediacy of response to infractions). 7. Intensity (e.g., average number of contacts and standard conditions and requirements). 8. Service delivery (e.g., single provider, internal provider, and dedicated caseloads). 9. Staff characteristics (e.g., initial training, conference attendance, and team meetings). 10. Funding (e.g., adequate funding and federal funding). 11. Quality assurance (e.g., internal and external QA and advisory board). Therefore, this study focused on the impact of the policies and procedures of the drug courts upon their effectiveness. The findings of the research indicated that the drug courts were most effective when violent and noncompliant offenders were excluded from the program. Also notable was the fact that pre-plea drug courts were the most effective (Shaffer, 2011, p. 513). Thus, the study provided some information on how drug courts should be operated to achieve optimal results. In another meta-analysis of drug courts, Mitchell and colleagues (2012) reviewed 154 independent evaluations of drug courts (92 aimed at adults, 34 for juveniles, and 28 that targeted DWI [drinking while intoxicated] offenders). They determined that the adult drug court participants had lower recidivism rates than nonparticipants—from 38% to 50% less with the treatment effect lasting three years. However, the DWI clients did not seem to be as effective, and juvenile drug courts had an even smaller impact upon recidivism. These studies demonstrate how meta-analysis can provide focused results on the strength of the effectiveness of criminal justice programs. They also considered the quality of the research and the nature of the intervention in their analyses. This type of information is particularly relevant to decision makers. 11 12 Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION Campbell Collaboration (Crime and Justice Group) A more recent development to promote the creation of valid evaluation research is the Campbell Collaboration. Named for experimental psychologist and noted methodologist Donald T. Campbell, the collaboration was established to prepare, maintain, and disseminate evidence-based research on the effects of interventions in education, social welfare, and crime and justice. Like the “Maryland Report,” the Campbell Collaboration sponsors and encourages the development of rigorous and valid evaluation reports that can contribute to the policy-making process. In particular, it’s Crime and Justice Group aims to prepare and maintain systematic reviews of crime programs and policies and make them electronically accessible through its website (http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/crime_ and_justice/index.php) to all concerned parties. The Crime and Justice Group also promotes the establishment of methodological criteria for including studies in their reviews, securing research funding, and making the best knowledge about the effectiveness of crime programs and policies available to all (Farrington & Petrosino 2001). The website provides abstracts of reports and articles on crime prevention programs. For example, 35 manuscripts were listed on the website at the time of writing this book. Many of the studies were on programs listed under the “Maryland Report,” such as hot-spot policing, drug courts, domestic violence, and early family/parent training programs. However, recent crime prevention target-hardening techniques were also reviewed, including the effects of improved street lighting and closed-circuit television surveillance on crime. Offender treatment programs, such as mentoring programs for juveniles, were also identified. Summary In this chapter, we introduced the purpose of criminal justice programs evaluation. In their most valid form, the results of a program evaluation can provide information for decision makers to guide criminal justice policy in a rational manner. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of criminal justice program evaluations help to inform this process. The recent efforts of the “Maryland Report” and the Campbell Collaboration (Crime and Justice Group) have enhanced the ability of evaluation research to achieve these goals. The emphasis of program evaluation is clearly on accountability. In the words of the “Maryland Report,” we want to know what works—that is, policies and programs that effectively prevent crime Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION and delinquency. The rigorous testing of crime prevention programs through valid research methods in program evaluation will assure us that information and knowledge about these efforts will be provided and, hopefully, disseminated to practitioners and the public. Discussion Questions 1. Review and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of program evaluation. 2. How did the “Maryland Report” determine how research on criminal justice programs should be evaluated? 3. In the “Maryland Report,” what programs demonstrated evidence that they worked, did not work, or were promising? 4. What are the aims of the Campbell Collaboration? 5. Why is it important to determine what works in criminal justice? How do systematic reviews and meta-analyses help to determine program effectiveness? References Adams, S. (1975). Evaluative research in corrections: A practical guide. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Braga, A. (2001). The Effects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 104–125. Farrington, D. P., & Petrosino, A. (2001). The campbell collaboration crime and justice group. The Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 35–49. Joyce, N. M., & Ramsey, C. H. (2013). Commentary on smart policing. Police Quarterly, 16(3), 358–368. Lipsey, M. W. (2005). Improving the evaluation of anticrime programs: Committee on improving evaluation of anticrime programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2007). Does Incarceration-based Drug Treatment Reduce Recidivism? A Meta-Analytic Synthesis of the Research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 353–375. Mears, D. P. (2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness. New York : Cambridge University Press. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., Eggers, A., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2012). Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and nontraditional drug courts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(1), 60–71. Mitchell, O., Wilson, D. B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2007). Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? a meta-analytic synthesis of the research. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 353–375. Pratt, T. C. (2010). Meta-analysis in criminal justice and criminology: What it is, when it’s useful, and what to watch out for. Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21(2), 152–167. Shaffer, D. K. (2011). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review. Justice Quarterly, 28(3), 493–521. Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the united states congress. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 13 14 Chapter 1 GETTING STARTED WITH PROGRAM EVALUATION Sherman, L., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S. D. (1998). National institute of justice research in brief: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. Suchman, E. A. (1974). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs. New York : Russell Sage Foundation. Sylvia, R. D., & Sylvia, K. M. (2012). Program evaluation and planning for the public manager. Long Grove, IL : Waveland Press. Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program effectiveness. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Welch, B. C., & Farrington, D. P. (2001). Toward an evidence-based approach of preventing crime. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 578, 158–173. Wells, E. (2009). The uses of meta-analysis in criminal justice research: A quantitative review. Justice Quarterly, 26(2), 268–294. References 1 Chapter 1 Getting Started with Program Evaluation Adams , S. ( 1975 ). Evaluative research in corrections: A practical guide . Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Justice . Braga , A. ( 2001 ). Th e Eff ects of Hot Spots Policing on Crime . Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 578 , 104 – 125 . Farrington , D. P. , & Petrosino , A. ( 2001 ). Th e campbell collaboration crime and justice group . Th e Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science , 578 , 35 – 49 . Joyce , N. M. , & Ramsey , C. H. ( 2013 ). Commentary on smart policing . Police Quarterly , 16 ( 3 ) , 358 – 368 . Lipsey , M. W. ( 2005 ). Improving the evaluation of anticrime programs: Committee on improving evaluation of anticrime programs . Washington, DC : Th e National Academies Press . Mitchell , O. , Wilson , D. B., & Mac 2007 ). Does Incarceration-based Drug Recidivism? A Meta-Analytic Synthesis Journal of Experimental Criminology , Kenzie , D. L. ( Treatment Reduce of the Research . 3 , 353 – 375 . Mears , D. P. ( 2010 ). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and eff ectiveness . New York : Cambridge University Press . Mitchell , O. , Wilson , D. B. , Eggers , A. , & MacKenzie , D. L. ( 2012 ). Assessing the eff ectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and nontraditional drug courts . Journal of Criminal Justice , 40 ( 1 ) , 60 – 71 . Mitchell , O. , Wilson , D. B. , & MacKenzie , D. L. ( 2007 ). Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? a meta-analytic synthesis of the research . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 3 , 353 – 375 . Pratt , T. C. ( 2010 ). Meta-analysis in criminal justice and criminology: What it is, when it’s useful, and what to watch out for . Journal of Criminal Justice Education , 21 ( 2 ) , 152 – 167 . Shaff er , D. K. ( 2011 ). Looking inside the black box of drug courts: A meta-analytic review . Justice Quarterly , 28 ( 3 ) , 493 – 521 . Sherman , L. , Gottfredson , D. , MacKenzie , D. , Eck , J. , Reuter , P. , & Bushway , S. ( 1997 ). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising: A report to the united states congress . Washington, DC : National Institute of Justice . Sherman , L. , Gottfredson , D. , MacKenzie , D. , Eck , J. , Reuter , P. , & Bushway , S. D. ( 1998 ). National institute of justice research in brief: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising . Washington, DC : National Institute of Justice . Suchman , E. A. ( 1974 ). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs . New York : Russell Sage Foundation . Sylvia , R. D. , & Sylvia , K. M. ( 2012 ). Program evaluation and planning for the public manager . Long Grove, IL : Waveland Press . Weiss , C. ( 1998 ). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program eff ectiveness . Engelwood Cliff s, NJ : Prentice-Hall . Welch , B. C. , & Farrington , D. P. ( 2001 ). Toward an evidence-based approach of preventing crime . Th e Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 578 , 158 – 173 . Wells , E. ( 2009 ). Th e uses of meta-analysis in criminal justice research: A quantitative review . Justice Quarterly , 26 ( 2 ) , 268 – 294 . 2 Chapter 2 Planning a Program Evaluation American Evaluation Association (2004, July). Publications . Retrieved January 27, 2013, from American Evaluation Association. < http://www.eval.org/publications/ GuidingPrinciplesPrintable.asp > . Behn , R. D. ( 2003 ). Eight purposes that public managers have for measuring performance . Public Administration Review , 63 ( 5 ) , 586 – 606 . Bickman , L. , Rog , D. J. , & Hedrick , T. E. ( 1998 ). Applied research design: A practical approach . In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 5 – 38 ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Boruch , R. F. ( 1998 ). Randomized controlled experiments for evaluation and planning . In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 161 – 192 ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Campbell , D. T. ( 1969 ). Reforms as experiments . American Psychologist , 24 ( 4 ) , 409 – 429 . Capowich , G. E. , & Roehl , J. A. ( 1994 ). Problem-oriented policing: Actions and eff ectiveness in san diego . In D. Rosenbaum (Ed.), Th e challenge of community policing: Testing the promises (pp. 127 – 128 ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Davidson , E. J. ( 2005 ). Evaluation methodology basics: Th e nuts and bolts of sound evaluation . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Eck , J. C. , & Spelman , W. ( 1987 ). Who ya gonna call? the police as problem-busters . Crime and Delinquency , 33 , 31 – 52 . Goldstein , H. ( 1979 ). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach . Crime and Delinquency , 25 , 236 – 258 . Goldstein , H. ( 1990 ). Problem-oriented policing . New York : McGraw Hill . Inciardi , J. A. , & Siegal , H. A. ( 1981 ). Whoring around: Some comments on deviance research in the private sector . Criminology , 19 ( 2 ) , 165 – 183 . Knowlton , L. W. , & Phillips , C. ( 2013 ). Th e logic model guidebook: Better strategies for great results (2nd ed.) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Locke , E. A. , & Latham , G. P. ( 2013 ). New developments in goal setting and task performance . East Sussex, UK : Routledge . McDavid , J. C. , & Hawthorn , L. R. ( 2006 ). Program evaluation and performance management: An introduction to practice . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Sieber , J. E. ( 1998 ). Planning ethically responsible research . In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 127 – 156 ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Suchman , E. A. ( 1974 ). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs . New York : Russell Sage Foundation . Weiss , C. ( 1998 ). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program eff ectiveness . Engelwood Cliff s, NJ : Prentice-Hall . 3 Chapter 3 Needs Assessment Evaluation Rossi , P. H. , Freeman , H. W. , & Lipsey , M. W. ( 2004 ). Evaluation: A systematic approach ( 7th ed. ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Scriven , M. , & Roth , J. ( 1990 ). Special feature: Needs assessment . Evaluation Review , 11 , 135 – 140 . Toet , A. , & van Schaik , M. G. ( 2012 ). Eff ects of signals of disorder on fear of crime in real and virtual environments . Journal of Environmental Psychology , 32 ( 3 ) , 260 – 276 . Wallace , D. ( 2012 ). Examining fear and stress as mediators between disorder perceptions and personal health, depression, and anxiety . Social Science Research , 41 ( 6 ) , 1515 – 1528 . Page Intentionally Left Blank 4 Chapter 4 Theory-Driven Evaluation Akers , R. ( 2009 ). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance . Boston : Northeastern University Press . Chen , H. -T. ( 1990 ). Th eory-driven evaluations . Newbury Park, CA : Sage . Chen , H. -T. ( 2005 ). Practical program evaluation . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Chen , H. -T. ( 2011 ). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning, implementation, and eff ectiveness . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Chen , H. -T. , & Rossi , P. H. ( 1980 ). Th e multi-goal, theory-driven approach to evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science . Social Forces , 59 , 106 – 122 . Chen , H. -T. , & Rossi , P. H. ( 1983 ). Evaluating with sense: Th e theory-driven approach . Evaluation Review , 7 , 283 – 302 . Coryn , C. L. S. , Noakes , L. A. , Westine , C. D. , & Schroter , D. C. ( 2011 ). A systematic review of theory-driven evaluation from practice from 1990 to 2009 . American Journal of Evaluation , 32 , 199 – 226 . Esbensen , F. A. , & Osgood , D. W. ( 1999 ). Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT): Results from the national evaluation . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 36 , 194 – 225 . Gottfredson , M. , & Hirschi , T. ( 1990 ). A general theory of crime . Palo Alto, CA : Stanford University Press . MacKenzie , D. L. , & Shaw , J. W. ( 1993 ). Th e impact of shock incarceration on technical violations and new criminal activities . Justice Quarterly , 10 , 463 – 487 . Matthews , B. , Hubbard , D. J. , & Latessa , E. ( 2001 ). Making the next step: Using evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming . Th e Prison Journal , 81 , 454 – 472 . Piquero , A. R. , Jennings , W. G. , & Farrington , D. P. ( 2010 ). On the malleability of selfcontrol: Th eoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime . Justice Quarterly , 27 , 803 – 883 . Rossi , P. H. , Lipsey , M. W. , & Freeman , H. E. ( 2004 ). Evaluation: A systematic approach ( 7th ed. ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Smith , M. F. ( 1989 ). Evaluability assessment: A practical approach . Norwell, MA : Kluwer Academic Publishers . Van Voorhis , P. , & Brown , K. ( 1996 ). Evaluability assessment: A tool for program development in corrections . Washington, DC : National Institute of Corrections . [Unpublished monography] . Van Voorhis , P. , Cullen , F. T. , & Applegate , D. ( 1995 ). Evaluating interventions with violent off enders . Federal Probation , 50 , 17 – 27 . Welsh , W. ( 2006 ). Th e need for a comprehensive approach to program planning, development, and evaluation . Criminology and Public Policy , 5 , 603 – 614 . Welsh , W. , & Harris , K. ( 2004 ). Criminal justice policy and planning ( 2nd ed. ) . Cincinnati: LexisNexis : Anderson Publishing Co . Wholey , J. S. ( 1979 ). Evaluation: Promise and performance . Washington, DC : Urban Institute . Wholey , J. S. ( 1987 ). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory . In L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, No. 33 . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass . Additional Readings Mercier , C. , Piat , M. , Peladeau , N. , & Dagenais , C. ( 2000 ). An application of theorydriven evaluation to a drop-in youth center . Evaluation Review , 24 , 73 – 91 . Wilson , D. M. , Gottfredson , D. C. , & Stickle , W. P. ( 2009 ). Gender diff erences in eff ects of teen courts on delinquency: A theory-guided evaluation . Journal of Criminal Justice , 37 , 21 – 27 . 5 Chapter 5 Process Evaluation Davidson , E. J. ( 2005 ). Evaluation methodology basics: Th e nuts and bolts of sound evaluation . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Eck , J. E. ( 2011 ). Assessing responses to problems: An introductory guide for police problem-solvers . Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice, CommunityOriented Policing Services . Harachi , T. W. , Abbott , R. D. , Catalano , R. F. , Haggerty , K. P. , & Fleming , C. B. ( 1999 ). Opening the black box: Using process evaluation measures to assess implementation and theory building . American Journal of Community Psychology , 27 ( 5 ) , 711 – 731 . Krueger , R. , & Casey , M. ( 2009 ). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Lowenkamp , C. , & Latessa , E. ( 2003 ). Evaluation of ohio’s halfway houses and community-based correctional facilities . Cincinnati : Center for Criminal Justice Research, University of Cincinnati . Mears , D. P. ( 2010 ). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and eff ectiveness . New York : Cambridge University Press . Patton , M. Q. ( 1987 ). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation . Newbury Park, CA : Sage . Patton , M. Q. ( 1990 ). Qualitative evaluation and research methods . Newbury Park, CA : Sage . Sherman , L. W. , & Strang , H. ( 2004 ). Experimental enthnography: Th e marriage of qualitative and quantitative research . Th e Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 595 , 204 – 222 . Stewart , D. W. , & Shamdasani , P. N. ( 1998 ). Focus group research: Exploration and discovery . In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied research methods (pp. 505 – 526 ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Suchman , E. A. ( 1987 ). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs . New York : Russell Sage Foundation . Vito , G. F. , Longmire , D. , & Kenney , J. P. ( 1983 ). Preventing rape: An evaluation of a multi-faceted program . Police Studies , 6 ( 4 ) , 30 – 36 . 50 . Vito , G. F. , & Tewksbury , R. ( 1998 ). Th e Jeff erson County (KY) drug court program: An impact assessment . Federal Probation , LXII ( 2 ) , 46 – 51 . Walsh , W. F. , Vito , G. F. , Tewksbury , R. , & Wilson , G. P. ( 2000 ). Fighting back in bright leaf: Community policing and drug traffi cking in public housing . American Journal of Criminal Justice , 25 ( 1 ) , 77 – 92 . 6 Chapter 6 Outcome Evaluation Cook , T. D. , & Campbell , D. T. ( 1979 ). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for fi eld settings . Boston : Houghton Miffl in . Duwe , G. ( 2010 ). Prison-based chemical dependency treatment in Minnesota: An outcome evaluation . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 6 , 57 – 81 . Eck , J. E. ( 2006 ). When is a bologna sandwich better than sex? a defense of small- n case study evaluations . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 2 , 345 – 362 . Eck , J. E. ( 2011 ). Assessing responses to problems: An introductory guide for police problem-solvers . Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice Offi ce of Community-Oriented Policing Services . Farrington , D. P. ( 2003 ). Methodological quality standards for evaluation research . Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 587 , 49 – 68 . Flexon , J. L. , Stolzenberg , L. , & D’Alessio , S. J. ( 2009 ). Cheating the hangman: Th e eff ect of Roper v. Simmons decision on homicides committed by juveniles . Crime and Delinquency , 57 ( 6 ) , 929 – 949 . Gottfredson , D. C. , Najaka , S. S. , & Kearley , B. ( 2003 ). Eff ectiveness of drug treatment courts: Evidence from a randomized trial . Criminology and Public Policy , 2 ( 2 ) , 171 – 196 . Higgins , G. E. , Ricketts , M. L. , Griffi th , J. D. , & Jirard , S. A. ( 2013 ). Race and Juvenile incarceration: A propensity score matching evaluation . American Journal of Criminal Justice , 38 ( 1 ) , 1 – 12 . Lum , C. , & Yang , S. M. ( 2005 ). Why do evaluation researchers in crime and justice choose non-experimental methods? Journal of Experimental Criminology , 1 , 191 – 213 . Palmer , T. , & Petrosino , A. ( 2003 ). Th e “Experimenting Agency”: Th e California youth authority research division . Evaluation Review , 27 ( 3 ) , 228 – 266 . Palmer , T. , VanVoorhis MacKenzie , D. L. ( 2012 Experimental criminology Experimental Criminology , P. , Taxman , F. S. , & ). Insights from ted palmer: in a diff erent era . Journal of , 8 ( 2 ) , 103 – 115 . Reichardt , C. S. , & Mark , M. M. ( 1998 ). Quasi-experimentation . In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 193 – 228 ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Sherman , L. W. ( 2007 ). Th e power few: Experimental criminology and the reduction of harm . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 3 , 299 – 321 . Somers , J. M. , Currie , L. , Moniruzzaman , A. , & Patterson , M. ( 2012 ). Drug treatment court of vancouver: An empirical evaluation of recidivism . International Journal of Drug Policy , 23 , 393 – 400 . Tewksbury , R. A. , & Vito , G. F. ( 1994 ). Improving the education skills of jail inmates: Preliminary program fi ndings . Federal Probation , LVIII ( 2 ) , 55 – 59 . Trochim , W. M. , & Donnelly , J. P. ( 2008 ). Research methods knowledge base . Mason, OH : Atomic Dog . Vito , G. F. , & Keil , T. J. ( 2004 ). Dangerousness and the death penalty: An examination of juvenile homicides in Kentucky . Th e Prison Journal , 84 , 436 – 451 . Vito , G. F. , & Tewksbury , R. A. ( 1998 ). Th e impact of treatment: Th e Jeff erson County (Kentucky) drug court program . Federal Probation , LXII ( 2 ) , 46 – 51 . Weisburd , D. , Lum , C. M. , & Petrosino , A. ( 2001 ). Does research design aff ect study outcomes in criminal justice? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 578 , 50 – 70 . Page Intentionally Left Blank 7 Chapter 7 Cost-efficiency Evaluation Babbie , E. ( 2002 ). Th e basics of social research ( 2nd ed. ) . Belmont, CA : Wadsworth . Craddock , A. ( 2004 ). Estimating criminal justice system costs and cost-savings benefi ts of day reporting centers . Journal of Off ender Rehabilitation , 39 , 69 – 98 . Lauria , D. T. ( 2007 ). Cost-benefi t analysis of tacoma’s assigned vehicle program . Police Quarterly , 10 , 192 – 217 . Levin , H. M. ( 1983 ). Cost-eff ectiveness, a primer: New perspectives in evaluation ( Vol. 4 ) . Newbury Park, CA : Sage . Royse , D. , & Th yer , B. A. ( 1996 ). Program evaluation: An introduction . Chicago : NelsonHall, Inc . Th ompson , M. S. ( 1980 ). Benefi t-cost analysis for program evaluation . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage . 8 Chapter 8 Measurement and Data Analysis Babbie , E. ( 2002 ). Th e basics of social research ( 2nd ed. ) . Belmont, CA : Wadsworth . Blalock , H. M. ( 1979 ). Social statistics . New York : McGraw-Hill . DeVellis , R. ( 1991 ). Scale development: Th eory and applications . Newbury Park, CA : Sage . Eck , J. E. ( 2010 ). Assessing responses to problems: An introductory guide for police problem solvers . Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice, Offi ce of Community-Oriented Policing Services . Nunnally , J. , & Bernstein , I. ( 1994 ). Psychometric theory ( 3rd ed. ) . New York : McGraw-Hill . Vito , G. F. , Tewksbury , R. , & Higgins , G. E. ( 2010 ). Evaluation of Kentucky’s early inmate release initiative: sentence, commutations, public safety, and recidivism . Federal Probation , 74 , 22 – 26 . 9 Chapter 9 Reporting and Using Evaluations Bryson , J. M. , Patton , M. Q. , & Bowman , R. A. ( 2011 ). Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit . Evaluation and Program Planning , 34 , 1 – 12 . Clarke , R. V. , & Eck , J. E. ( 2005 ). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps . Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Justice, Offi ce of Community-Oriented Policing Services . Innes , C. A. , & Everett , R. S. ( 2008 ). Factors and conditions infl uencing the use of research in the criminal justice system . Western Criminology Review , 9 ( 1 ) , 49 – 58 . Leviton , L. C. , & Hughes , E. F. ( 1981 ). Research on the utilization of evaluations: A review and synthesis . Evaluation Research , 5 ( 4 ) , 525 – 548 . Lipton , D. S. ( 1992 ). How to maximize utilization of evaluation research by policymakers . Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 521 , 175 – 188 . O’Sullivan , R. G. ( 2012 ). Collaborative evaluation within a framework of stakeholderoriented evaluation approaches . Evaluation and Program Planning , 35 , 518 – 522 . Skogan , W. G. , Hartnett , S. M. , Bump , N. , & Dubois , J. ( 2008 ). Evaluation of CeaseFire Chicago . Chicago : Northwestern University . Available online at < www.ncjrs.gov/ pdffi les1/nij/grants/227181.pdf > . Synder , H. N. ( 2011 ). Socially responsible criminology: Quality relevant research with targeted, eff ective dissemination . Criminology and Public Policy , 10 ( 2 ) , 207 – 215 . Weiss , C. ( 1998 ). Evaluation research: Methods for assessing program eff ectiveness . Engelwood Cliff s, NJ : Prentice-Hall . 10 Chapter 10 Looking Ahead: A Call to Action in Evaluation Research Aos , S. , Miller , M. , & Drake , E. ( 2006 ). Evidence-based policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates . Federal Sentencing Reporter , 19 ( 4 ) , 275 – 290 . Braga , A. A. , & Hinkle , M. ( 2010 ). Th e participation of academics in the criminal justice working group process . In J. Klofas , N. K. Hipple , & E. McGarrell (Eds.), Th e new criminal justice: American communities and the changing world of crime control (pp. 114 – 120 ) . New York : Routledge . Drake , E. K. , Aos , S. , & Miller , M. G. ( 2009 ). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State . Victims and Off enders , 4 , 170 – 196 . Landenberger , N. A. , & Lipsey , M. A. ( 2005 ). Th e postiive eff ects of cognitive-behavioral programs for off enders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with eff ective treatment . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 1 , 451 – 476 . Latessa , E. J. ( 2004 ). Th e challenge of change: Correctional programs and evidencebased practices . Criminology and Public Policy , 3 ( 4 ) , 547 – 560 . Leeuw , F. evaluation particular Research , ( 2005 ). Trends and developments in program in general and criminal justice programs in . European Journal on Criminal Policy and 11 , 233 – 258 . Moore , M. H. ( 2002 ). Th e limits of social science in guiding policy . Criminology and Public Policy , 2 ( 1 ) , 33 – 42 . Nagin , D. S. , & Weisburd , D. ( 2013 ). Evidence and public policy: Th e example of evaluation research in policing . Criminology and Public Policy , 12 ( 4 ) , 651 – 679 . Sherman , L. W. ( 2006 ). “To Develop and Test”: Th e inventive diff erence between evaluation and experimentation . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 2 , 393 – 406 . Skogan , W. ( 2010 ). Th e challenge of timeliness and utility in research and evaluation . In J. Klofas , N. K. Hipple , & E. McGarrell (Eds.), Th e new criminal justice: American communities and the changing world of crime control (pp. 128 – 137 ) . New York : Routledge . Weatherburn , D. ( 2009 ). Policy and program evaluation: Recommendations for criminal justice policy analysts and advisors . Sydney, Australia : NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research . Wilson , J. Q. ( 2006 ). Th e need for evaluation research . Journal of Experimental Criminology , 2 , 321 – 328 . Page Intentionally Left Blank
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running Head: METHODS OF REPORTING EVALUATION FINDINGS
1

Methods of reporting evaluation findings
Student name
Institution of Affiliation

METHODS OF REPORTING EVALUATION FINDINGS
2
Introduction
How the presentation of evaluation will be conducted is of crucial importance as it will
determine on the implementation strategy of the evaluation program. The method used for
presenting and evaluation finding is mainly determined by the nature of the audience being
addressed. Therefore, the process should meet the specific needs of the audience.
Methods of reporting the evaluation finding
1.

Written report

Refer...


Anonymous
Awesome! Made my life easier.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Related Tags