Evaluation of welfare reform: A Framework for Addressing the Urgent and the Important

Evaluation Review

Volumn 22, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 668-694

  McClintock, Charles ^a   Colosi, Laura A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES;

HEALTH CARE REFORM; HEALTH PLANNING; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PROGRAM EVALUATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0032185739     PISSN: 0193841X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X9802200505     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Argyris, C., and D. A. Schön. 1996. Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Besharov, D. J., P. Germanis, and P. H. Rossi. 1997. Evaluating welfare reform. College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
3. Besharov, D. J., K. T. White, and M. B. Coggeshall. 1996. Health related welfare rules. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
4. Beyer, J. M., and H. M. Trice. 1982. The utilization process: A conceptual framework for synthesis of empirical findings. Administrative Science Quarterly 27:591-622.
5. Bloom, D., and D. Butler. 1995. Implementing time-limited welfare. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
6. Campbell, D. T. 1979. Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning 2:67-90.
7. Chambers, D. E., Kenneth R. Wedel, and Mary K. Rodwell. 1992. Evaluating social programs. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
8. Chelimsky, E. 1987. Linking program evaluation to user's needs. In The politics of program evaluation, edited by D. Palumbo, 72-99. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. _. 1995. The political environment of evaluation and what it means for the development of the field. Evaluation Practice 16:215-25.
10. _. 1998. The role of experience in formulating theories of evaluation practice. American Journal of Evaluation 19:35-55.
11. Chen, H. 1990. Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
12. Chisman, F. P. 1995. Can the states do any better? The Nation, May, 600-2.
13. Corbett, T. 1996. The new federalism: Monitoring consequences. Focus 18:3-6. University of Wisconsin-Madison, Institute for Research on Poverty.
14. Council on Children and Families. 1996. Moving toward better outcomes for children: New York Touchstones concept paper. New York State Council on Children and Families, Albany, NY.
15. Cronbach, L. J., and Associates. 1980. Toward reform of program evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16. Edelman, P. 1997. The worst thing Bill Clinton has done. The Atlantic Monthly, March, 43-58.
17. Freedman, S., and D. Friedlander. 1995. The JOBS evaluation: Early findings on program impacts in three sites. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
18. Friedlander, D., and P. K. Robins. 1997. The distributional impacts of social programs. Evaluation Review 21:531-53.
19. Greene, J., and C. McClintock. 1991. The evolution of evaluation methodology. Theory Into Practice 30:13-20.
20. Guba, E., and Y. Lincoln. 1989. Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21. Hamilton, S. 1990. Apprenticeship for adulthood: Preparing youth for the future. New York: Free Press.
22. Haveman, R. 1996. Earnings inequality: The influence of changing opportunities and choices. Washington, DC: AEI.
23. House, E. 1990. Evaluation and social justice: Where are we? In Evaluation and education: At quarter century, edited by M. McLaughlin and D. Phillips, 233-47. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
24. Knapp, M. S. 1996. Methodological issues in evaluating integrated services initiatives. Evaluating Initiatives to Integrate Human Services: New Directions for Evaluation 69:21-34.
25. Korr, W. S., and A. Joseph. 1996. Effects of local conditions on program outcomes: Analysis of contradictory findings from two programs for homeless mentally ill. Journal of Health and Social Policy 8:41-53.
26. Leviton, L. C., and E. F. Hughes. 1981. Research on the utilization of evaluation: A review and synthesis. Evaluation Review 5:525-48.
27. Maynard, R., ed. 1993. Building self-sufficiency among welfare dependent teenage parents: Lessons from the Teenage Parent Demonstration. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
28. McClintock, C. 1986. Toward a theory of program evaluation. In Evaluation studies review annual, edited by D. S. Cordray and M. W. Lipsey, vol. 11, 205-23. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
29. _. 1990a. Evaluators as applied theorists. Evaluation Practice 11:1-14.
30. _. 1990b. Administrators as applied theorists. Advances in Program Theory. New Directions in Program Evaluation 47:19-33.
31. _. 1997. Making social indicators useful for policy and program management in New York State. New York State College of Human Ecology Policy Perspectives Seminar Series. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
32. McKinlay, J. B. 1996. More appropriate evaluation methods for community-level health interventions: Introduction to the special issue. Evaluation Review 20:237-43.
33. Meyers, M. K., B. Glaser, and K. MacDonald. 1998. On the front lines of welfare delivery: Are workers implementing policy reforms? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17:1-22.
34. Michalopoulos, C., H. Bos, R. LaLonde, and N. Verma. 1997. Assessing the impact of welfare reform on urban communities: The urban change project and methodological considerations. Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, November, Washington, DC.
35. Moore, K. 1998. Multiple strategies for evaluating the effects of welfare reform on children. Presentation made at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, January 23.
36. Olds, D. L., J. Eckenrode, C. R. Henderson, H. Kitzman, J. Powers, R. Cole, K. Sidora, P. Morris, L. M. Pettitt, and D. Luckey. 1997. Long-term effects of home visitation on maternal life course and child abuse and neglect. Journal of the American Medical Association 278:637-43.
37. Palumbo, D. 1987. Politics and evaluation. In The politics of program evaluation, edited by D. Palumbo, 12-46. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
38. Patton, M. Q. 1988. The evaluator's responsibility for utilization. Evaluation Practice 9:5-24.
39. _. 1996. A world larger than formative and summative. Evaluation Practice 17:131-44.
40. Pavetti, L., and A. Duke. 1995. Increasing participation in work and work-related activities: Lessons from five state welfare reform projects. Vols. 1 and 2. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
41. Peterson, P. 1995. Who should do what? Divided responsibility in the federal system. The Brookings Review (Spring):6-11.
42. Radaelli, C., and B. Dente. 1996. Evaluation strategies and analysis of the policy process. Evaluation 2 (1): 51-66.
43. Raiff, N. R., and B. K. Shore. 1993. Advanced case management: New strategies for the nineties. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
44. Rangarajan, A. 1998. Testing ways to keep welfare recipients employed. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
45. Riccio, J. A., and A. Orenstein. 1996. Understanding best practices for operating welfare-to-work programs. Evaluation Review 20:3-28.
46. Rivlin, A. M. 1992. Reviving the American dream: The economy, the states & the federal government. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
47. Rodriguez, D. 1996. What works in welfare to work: A quick synthesis for the 104th Congress of the lessons learned from state AFDC waiver evaluations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, October, Atlanta, GA.
48. Scheirer, M. A. 1996. A user's guide to program templates: A new tool for evaluating program content. New Directions for Evaluation, vol. 72. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
49. Schön, D. A. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
50. Schorr, L. B. 1997. Common purpose: Strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America. New York: Anchor Books by Doubleday.
51. Scott, P. G. 1997. Assessing determinants of bureaucratic discretion: An experiment in street-level decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 7:35-57.
52. Scriven, M. 1996. Types of evaluation and types of evaluator. Evaluation Practice 17:151-62.
53. Shaw, K. M., and E. Replogle. 1996. Challenges in evaluating school-linked services: Toward a more comprehensive evaluation framework. Evaluation Review 20:424-69.
54. Stasz, C., and D. J. Brewer. 1998. Work-based learning: Student perspectives on quality and links to school. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 20:31-46.
55. Stevens, C. J., and M. Dial. 1994. What constitutes misuse? New Directions for Program Evaluation 64:3-13.
56. Stufflebeam, D. L., and A. J. Shinkfield. 1985. Systematic evaluation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
57. Treno, A. J., and H. D. Holder. 1997. Evaluating efforts to reduce community-level problems through structural rather than individual change: A multicomponent community trial to prevent alcohol-involved problems. Evaluation Review 21:133-9.
58. Urban Institute. 1997. Assessing the new federalism. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
59. U.S. Congress. 1787. The Constitution of the United States of America. Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration.
60. Vobejda, B., and J. Havemann. 1998. Sanctions, A force behind welfare rolls: States are cutting off tens of thousands who won't seek work or follow rules. The Washington Post, March 23, A12.
61. Weiss, C. H. 1979. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review 39:426-31.
62. _. 1988. Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Evaluation Practice 9:5-19.
63. _. 1997. How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Evaluation Review 21:501-24.