Using logic modeling to focus evaluation efforts: Translating operational the ories into practical measures

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation

Volumn 33, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 47-65

  Stinchcomb, Jeanne B ^a  

^a FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Evaluation methodology; Logic modeling; Logic models; Policy development; The ory based evaluation; Theory building

Indexed keywords

EID: 84979506906     PISSN: 10509674     EISSN: 15408558     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1300/J076v33n02_04     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Argyris, Chris. (1982). Reasoning, learning, andaction San Fran cisco, CA: Jossey-cass. Arizona corrections director calls boot camp program a failure; seeks elimination. Corrections Diges (Jan u ary 26, 1996), 1-2.
2. Boot camp may not be best method to help de lin quents. Corrections Digest (June 29, 1994), 8-9.
3. Brady, Thomas V. (1996). Mea suring what mat ters part one: measures of crime, fear, and disorder. National Institute of Justice: Research in Action. Washing ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
4. Camp, Camille Graham, and Camp, George M. (1997). The cor rec tions year book 1997. South Sa lem, NY: Crim i nal Jus tice In sti tute.
5. Cato, Bertha; Chen, William; and Corbett-Perez, Shan non. (1998). Logic model: A tool for planning and evaluating health and recreation prevention projects. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation, and Dance, 69, 57-61.
6. Chen, Huey-tsyh. (1990). The ory-driven evalu a tions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Pub li-ca tions.
7. Cordray, D.S. (1986). Quasi-experimental analysis: A mixture of methods and judgment, in W.M.K. Trochim, ed., Advances in quasi-experimental de sign and analysis: New directions for program evaluation. San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass.
8. Cressey, Donald R. (1958). The nature and effectiveness of correctional techniques. Lawand Contemporary Problems, 23, 754-771.
9. Cronbach, Lee J. et al. (1980). To war dre form of program evaluation. San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass.
10. Cronin, Roberta C. (1994). Boot camps for adult and juvenile of fenders: Over view and up date. National Institute of Justice: Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
11. Gant, Larry. (1999). Quoting an anonymous source in “Using logic models to specify and contextualize out come and evaluation measures.” Website: www.standardsandoutcomes. com/SENIOR2/lgusing.html.
12. Gehring, Thom, and Eggleston, Carolyn. (1999). Is recidivism a valid mea sure of cor-rectional success? No. In Charles B. Fields, ed.Controversialis suesin corrections Boston: Allyn and Ba con.
13. Gendreau, Paul, and Paparozzi, Mario A. (1995). Examining what works in com mu-nitycorrections. Corrections Today, 57 (1), 28-30.
14. Glaser, Daniel. (1974). Remedies for the key deficiency incriminal justice evaluation research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 11, 144-54.
15. Harris, Philip, and Smith, Stephen. (1996). De veloping com mu nity cor rec tions: An im ple men ta tion per spec tive. In Alan T. Harland, ed., Choosing correctional options that work: de fining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thou sand Oaks, C A: Sage Publications.
16. Hawkins, J. David and Nederbood, Britt. (1987). Hand book for evaluating drug and al co holprevention pro grams. Rockville, MD: Office for Sub stance Abuse Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
17. Lipsey, Mark W. (1990). De sign sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
18. Lipsey, Mark W., and Pol lard, J.A. (1989). Driving to ward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 317-28.
19. Lipsey, Mark W. et al. (1985). Evaluation: The state of the art and the sorry state of the science. In D.S. Cordray, ed., Utilizingpriorre search in evaluation planning: New directions for program evaluation. San Fran cisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Lipton, Douglas; Martinson, Robert; and Wilks, Judith. (1975). The effective ness of correctional treatment: A survey of treatment evaluation studies. New York: Praeger Pub lishers.
21. MacKenzie, Doris; and Souryal, Claire. (1994). Multisite evaluation of shock in carceration. National Institute of Justice: Research Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Jus tice.
22. Marquart, Jules M. (1990). A Pat tern-matching approach to link program theory and evaluation data. Advances in Program Theory: New Directions for Program Evaluation, 47: 93-107.
23. Martinson, Rob ert. (1975). What works? Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35: 22-54.
24. Michigan safe and drug-free schools and com munities. (1999). Website: www.mdch. state.mi.us/ODCP/safe/Imdescr.htm.
25. Mi nor, Kevin I. (1999). Is recidivism a valid mea sure of correctional success? Yes. In Charles B. Fields, ed. Controversialis suesincorrections.Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
26. Nay, J.N. (1973). Ben e fits and costs of man power training programs: Asyn the sis of pre viousstudies. Washing ton, DC: Ur ban Institute.
27. New Hamp shire’s shockprison shuts its doors. Corrections Digest (April 4, 1997), 1-3.
28. Newman, Graeme. (1983). Justandpainful. New York: Macmillan.
29. Palmer, Ted. (1983). The “effectiveness” is sue to day: An over view. Federal Probartion, 47, 3-10.
30. Paternoster, Raymond. (1987). The deterrent effect of the per ceivedcertainty and severity of pun ish ment: A re view of the evidence and issues. Justice Quarterly 4, 173-217.
31. Patton, Michael Quinn. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Pub li ca tions.
32. Perersilia, Joan. (1996). Improving corrections policy: The importance of re searchers and practitioners working to gether. In Alan T. Harland, ed., Choosing correctional optionsthat work: De fining the demand and evaluating the supply. Thou sand Oaks, C A: Sage P ub li ca tions.
33. Peters, Michael, et al. (1997). Boot camps for juvenile offenders: Pro gram summary. Washing ton, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
34. Scheirer, Mary Ann. (1987). Program theory and implementation theory: Implications for evaluators. Using program theory in evaluation: New directions for program evaluation, 33, 59-76.
35. Schwartz, Martin D. and Travis, Lawrence F. (1997). Corrections: An issues approach Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing.
36. Sechrest, Lee; White, Susan O.; and Brown, Elizabeth D. (1979). The rehabilitation of criminal offenders: Problems and prospects. Washing ton, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
37. Smith, Douglas, and Gartin, Patrick. (1989). Specifying specific deterrence: The in fluence of arrest on future criminal activity. American Sociological Review, 54, 94-105.
38. Stinchcomb, Jeanne B. (1999). Re covering from the shocking reality of shock in carceration: what correctional ad min istrators can learn from boot camp failures. Corrections Management Quarterly, 3, 43-52.
39. Stinchcomb, Jeanne B. and Fox, Vernon. (1999). Introduction to corrections Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993). Prison boot camps: Short-term prison costs reduced, but long-term impactuncertain. Washington, DC:U.S. General Accounting Office.
41. VanVoorhis, Patricia. (1997). Correctional effectiveness: The high cost of ignoring success. In Mar tin D. Schwartz and Law rence F. Travis, eds. Corrections: An is sues approach. Cincinnati: An der son Pub lishing, 237-248.
42. Weiss, Carol H., ed. (1977). Using social research in public policymaking. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
43. Weiss, Carol H. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater head way? Evaluation Review, 21, 501-524.
44. Weiss, Carol H., and Bucuvalas, Michael. (1980). Truth test and utility test: Decrsion-makers’ frame of reference for social science research. American Sociological Review, 36, 302-313.