Methodological issues in evaluating integrated services initiatives

New Directions for Evaluation

Volumn 1996, Issue 69, 1996, Pages 21-34

  Knapp, Michael S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347998726     PISSN: 10976736     EISSN: 1534875X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/ev.1025     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Bruner, C. “A Framework for Measuring the Potential of Comprehensive Services Strategies.” In N. Young, S. Gardner, S. Coley, L. Schorr, and C. Bruner (eds.), Making a Difference: Moving to Outcome-Based Accountability for Comprehensive Service Reforms. Falls Church, Va.: National Center for Services Integration, 1994.
2. Center for the Study of Social Policy. New Futures Evaluation Strategy. Washington, D.C.: Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1987.
3. Chen, H-T. Theory-Driven Evaluation. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1990.
4. Cronbach, L. J., and Associates. Towards the Reform of Program Evaluation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1980.
5. Crowson, R. L., and Boyd, W. L. “Coordinated Services for Children: Designing Arks for Storms and Seas Unknown.” American Journal of Education, 1993, 101, 140–179.
6. Crowson, R. L., and Boyd, W. L. “Achieving Coordinated, School-Linked Services: Facilitating Utilization of the Emerging Knowledge Base.” Paper prepared for the Invitational Conference on Improving Urban Schools: Better Strategies for the Dissemination and Utilization of Knowledge, Arlington, Va., Sept. 1994.
7. Dym, B. “Ecological Perspectives on Change in Families.” In H. B. Weiss and F. H. Jacobs (eds.), Evaluating Family Programs. New York: De Gruyter, 1988.
8. Family Impact Seminar. Data Integration and Evaluation: Essential Components of Family-Centered Systems Reform—Background Briefing Report. Washington, D.C.: American Association of Marital and Family Therapy Evaluation and Education Foundation, 1993.
9. General Accounting Office. Integrating Human Services. Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, 1992.
10. Golden, O. “Collaboration as a Means Not an End: Serving Disadvantaged Families and Children.” In L. B. Schorr, D. Both, and C. Copple (eds.), Effective Services for Young Children—Report of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991.
11. Gomby, D. S., and Larson, C. S. “Evaluation of School-Linked Services.” The Future of Children, 1992, 2 (1), 68–84.
12. Kagan, S. L. United We Stand: Collaboration for Child Care and Early Education Services. New York: Teachers College Press, 1991.
13. Knapp, M. S. “Applying Time Series Strategies: An Underutilized Solution.” In L-E. Datta and R. Perloff (eds.), Improving Evaluations. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1979.
14. Knapp, M. S., and Woolverton, S. “Social Class and Schooling.” In J. Banks and C. M. Banks' (eds.), Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education. New York: Macmillan, 1995.
15. Mawhinney, H. “Discovering Shared Values: Ecological Models to Support Interagency Collaboration.” In L. Adler and S. Gardner (eds.), The Politics of Linking Schools and Social Services. London: Falmer Press, 1993.
16. Mitchell, D. E., and Scott, L. D. “Professional and Institutional Perspectives on Interagency Collaboration.” In L. Adler and S. Gardner (eds.), The Politics of Linking Schools and Social Services. London: Falmer Press, 1993.
17. Morrill, W. A., Reisner, E. R., Chimerine, C. B., and Marks, E. L. Collaborations That Integrate Services for Children and Families. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1991
18. Patton, M. Q. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1978.
19. Philliber Research Associates. An Evaluation of the Caring Communities Program at Walbridge Elementary School. Accord, NY: Philliber Research Associates, 1994.
20. Richardson, V., Casanova, U., Placier, L., and Guilfoyle, K. Students At-Risk. London: Falmer Press, 1991.
21. Rossi, P. “Strategies for Evaluation.” Children and Youth Services Review, 1992, 14 (1–2), 167–191.
22. Schorr, L. B. “The Case for Shifting to Outcome-Based Accountability.” In N. Young, S. Gardner, S. Coley, L. Schorr, and C. Bruner (eds.), Making a Difference: Moving to Outcome-Based Accountability for Comprehensive Service Reforms. Falls Church, Va.: National, Center for Service Integration, 1994.
23. Schorr, L. B., and Both, D. “Attributes of Effective Services for Young Children: A Brief Survey of Current Knowledge and Its Implications for Program and Policy Development.” In L. B. Schorr, D. Both, and C. Copple (eds.), Effective Services for Young Children—Report of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1991.
24. Scriven, M. “Goal-Free Evaluation.” In E. House (ed.), School Evaluation: The Politics and Process. Berkeley, Calif.: McCutchan, 1974.
25. Wehlage, G., Smith, G., and Lipman, P. “Restructuring Urban Schools: The New Futures Experience.” American Educational Research Journal, 1992, 29 (1), 51–93.
26. Weiss, C. “Nothing as Practical as a Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families.” In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, and C. H. Weiss (eds.), New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute, 1995.
27. Weiss, H. B., and Greene, J. G. “An Empowerment Partnership for Family Support and Education Programs and Evaluation.” Family Science Review, 1992, 5 (1–2), 131–148.
28. White, K. R. “Cost Analyses in Family Support Programs.” In H. B. Weiss and F. H. Jacobs (eds.), Evaluating Family Programs. New York: De Gruyter, 1988.
29. White, W. A. “California's State Partnership for School-Linked Services.” In L. Adler and S. Gardner (eds.), The Politics of Linking Schools and Social Services. London: Falmer Press, 1993.