How modern democracies are shaping evaluation and the emerging challenges for evaluation

American Journal of Evaluation

Volumn 22, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 419-429

  Henry, Gary T ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0035457174     PISSN: 10982140     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S1098-2140(01)00138-2     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Abramson, L. (April 8, 2001). CPC Evaluation. Washington, DC: National Public Radio.
2. Adams, A. (1992). Correspondence on women's rights. In D. Ravitch & A. Thernstrom (Eds.), The democracy reader: Classic and modern speeches, essays, poems, declarations and documents on freedom and human rights worldwide (pp. 103-104). New York, NY: HarperCollins. (Original Correspondence March 31, 1776.)
3. Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation. (1999). Evaluating Head Start: A recommended framework for studying the impact of the Head Start program. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
4. Alkin, M. C., Daillak, R., & White, P. (1979). Using evaluations: Does evaluation make a difference? Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
5. Barnett, W. S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future of Children, 53, 24-49.
6. Barnett, S., Tarr, J., & Lamy, C. E. (2001). Fragile lives/shattered dreams: Second annual report on implementation of preschool education in the Abbott districts. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.
7. Bickman, L. (1996). A continuum of care: More is not always better. American Psychologist, 51, 689-701.
8. Caplan, N. (1977). A minimal set of conditions necessary for the utilization of social science knowledge in policy formulation at the national level. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 183-198). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
9. Datta, L.-e. (1983). A tale of two studies: The Westinghouse-Ohio Evaluation of Project Head Start and the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies Report. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.
10. Datta, L.-e. (2000). Seriously seeking fairness: Strategies for crafting a non-partisan evaluation in a partisan world. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), 1-14.
11. The Federalist, Number 9. (1992). In D. Ravitch & A. Thernstrom (Eds.), The democracy reader: Classic and modern speeches, essays, poems, declarations and documents on freedom and human rights worldwide (pp. 123-132). New York, NY: HarperCollins. (Original work published 1788.)
12. Franklin, B. (1782). In D. Ravtich & A. Therstrom (Eds.), The democracy reader: Classic and modern speeches, essays, poems, declarations and documents on freedom and human rights worldwide (pp. 109-111). New York, NY: HarperCollins. (Original speech 1787.)
13. Gilliam, W. S., & Zigler, E. F. (2000). A critical meta-analysis of all evaluations of state-funded preschool from 1977 to 1998: Implications for policy, service delivery and program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 441-472.
14. Gilliam, W. S., Ripple, C. H., Zigler, E. F., & Leiter, V. (2000). Evaluating child and family demonstration initiatives: Lessons from the Comprehensive Child Development Program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 41-59.
15. Gomby, D. S., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations-analysis and become. The Future of the Children, 9(1), 4-24.
16. Greenberg, D., Mandell, M., & Onstott, M. (2000). The dissemination and utilization of welfare-to-work experiments in state policy making. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(3), 367-382.
17. Harkreader, S. A., & Henry, G. T. (2000). Using performance measurement systems for assessing the merit and worth of reforms. American Journal of Evaluation, 21, 151-170.
18. Henry, G. T. (1999, November). What do we expect from preschool? A systematic inquiry into values, conflicts and consensus. Paper presented at The American Evaluation Association, Orlando, FL.
19. Henry, G. T., & Dickey, K. (1993). Implementing performance monitoring: A research and development approach. Public Administration Review, 53(3), 203-212.
20. Henry, G. T., Dickey, K. C., & Areson, J. C. (1991). Stakeholder participation in educational performance monitoring. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 177-188.
21. Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (1998). Values and realist evaluation. In G. T. Henry, M. M. Mark, & G. Julnes (Eds.), Realist evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, Number 78 (pp. 53-72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22. Hilgartner, S., & Bosk, C. (1988). The rise and fall of social problems: A public arenas model. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 53-78.
23. House, E. R. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA: Newbury.
24. House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (1999). Values in evaluation and social research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25. House, E. R., & Howe, K. R. (2000). Deliberate democratic evaluation. In K. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process. New Directions for Evaluation, Number 85 (pp. 3-13). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
26. Jefferson, T. (1992). Notes on the state of Virginia-religion. In D. Ravitch & A. Thernstrom (Eds.), The democracy reader: classic and modern speeches, essays, poems, declarations and documents on freedom and human rights worldwide (pp. 108-109). New York, NY: HarperCollins.
27. Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28. Jonas, R. K. (1999a). Against the whim: State legislatures' use of program evaluation. In R. K. Jonas (Ed.), New Directions for Evaluation, Number 81 (pp. 3-10). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29. Katz, L. G. (1997). A developmental approach to assessment of young children. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
30. Mark, M. M., Henry, G. T., & Julnes, G. (2000). An integrated framework for understanding, guiding and improving policies and programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31. National Academy of Sciences. (2001). Evaluating welfare reform in an era of transition. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council.
32. Patrizi, P., & McMullen, B. (1998). Evaluation of foundations: The unrealized potential. (Unpublished manuscript).
33. Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
34. Patton, M. Q., Guthrie, K. M., Brennan, N. J., French, B. B., & Blyth, D. A. (1977). In search of impact: An analysis of the utilization of federal health evaluation research. In C. H. Weiss (Ed.), Using social research in public policy making (pp. 141-164). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
35. Reynolds, A. J. (2000). Success in early intervention: The Chicago child-parent centers. Lincoln, NE: University Nebraska Press.
36. Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Roberston, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2000). A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of American Medical Association, 285, 2339-2346.
37. Riccio, J., Friedlander, D., & Freedman, S. (1994). GAIN: Benefits, costs and three-year impacts of a welfare-to-work program. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
38. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). The high/scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 117-143.
39. Shulock, N. (1999). The paradox of policy analysis: If it is not used, why do we produce so much of it? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 18(2), 226-244.
40. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001a). Foundation models for 21st century program evaluation (Vol. 89). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
41. Stufflebeam, D. L. (2001b). The meta-evaluation imperative. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(1), 183-209.
42. U.S. Constitution, art. 1, sec. 5. (1992). In D. Ravitch & A. Thernstrom (Eds.), The democracy reader: Classic and modern speeches, essays, poems, declarations and documents on freedom and human rights worldwide (p. 113). New York, NY: HarperCollins. (Original work published 1791.)
43. U.S. Constitution of the United States of America. (1992). In D. Ravitch & A. Thernstrom (Eds.), The democracy reader: Classic and modern speeches, essays, poems, declarations and documents on freedom and human rights worldwide (pp. 109-111). Philadelphia, PA: HarperCollins. (Original work published 1791.)
44. U.S. Constitution, Amend 1. (1992). In D. Ravitch & A. Thernstrom (Eds.), The democracy reader: Classic and modern speeches, essays, poems, declarations and documents on freedom and human rights worldwide (pp. 118-119). New York, NY: HarperCollins. (Original work published 1791.)
45. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1977). Head Start: Research provides little information on impact of current program. Washington, D.C.: Author.
46. Washington, G. (1992). Farewell address. In D. Ravitch & A. Thernstrom (Eds.), The democracy reader: Classic and modern speeches, essays, poems, declarations and documents on freedom and human rights worldwide (pp. 136-137). New York, NY: HarperCollins.(Original speech 1796.)
47. Weiss, C. H. (1983). The stakeholder approach to evaluation: Origins and promise. In A. S. Bryk (Ed.), New Directions for Program Evaluation, Number 17 (pp. 3-14). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
48. Weiss, C. H., & Bucuvalas, M. J. (1977). The challenge of social research to decision making: Using social research in public policy making (pp. 213-232). Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.
49. Wholey, J. S. (1983). Evaluation and effective public management. Boston, MA: Little Brown.