This article reports on the theory-driven evaluation of a drop-in center for youth that incorporated a literature search, concept mapping with staff, and focus groups with youth. Findings revealed strong agreement among the three sources of data around specific elements identified as critical components of a program theory of global prevention in after-school-hours initiatives, such as drop-in centers. These results are used to illustrate how a theory-driven approach was relevant for the context and objectives of this evaluation, as well as how it was used to develop knowledge useful for action, social intervention theory, and further research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aguilar, T. E.
, and W. W. Munson. 1992. Leisure education and counselling as intervention components in drug and alcohol treatment for adolescents. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education37 (3): 23-34.
2.
Bickman, L.
, ed. 1987. Using program theory in evaluation. New directions for program evaluation, no 33. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3.
Bickman, L.
, ed. 1990. Advances in program theory. New directions for program evaluation, no 47. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Bronfenbrenner, U.1979. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
5.
Caracelli, V. J.
, and J. C. Greene. 1997. Crafting mixed-method evaluation designs. In Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms, edited by J. C. Green and V. J. Caracelli, 19-32. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6.
Carnegie Corporation of New York
. 1992. A matter of time. Risk and opportunity in the nonschool hours. Report of the Task Force on Youth Development and Community Programs. New York: Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development.
7.
Chen, H.-T.1990a. Issues in constructing program theory. In Advances in program theory, edited by L. Bickman, 7-18. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Chen, H.-T.1990b. Theory-driven evaluations. A comprehensive perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9.
Chen, H.-T.1994. Current trends and future directions in program evaluation. Evaluation Practice15 (3): 229-238.
10.
Chen, H.-T.1997. Applying mixed-methods under the framework of theory-driven evaluations. In Advances in mixed-method evaluation: The challenges and benefits of integrating diverse paradigms, edited by J. C. Green and V. J. Caracelli, 61-72. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
11.
Chen, H.-T.
, and P. H. Rossi. 1983. Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review7 (3): 283-301.
12.
Chen, H.-T.
, and P. H. Rossi. 1987. The theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning10:95-103.
13.
Cohen, H. L.1976. BPLAY: A community system, phase one. In Analysis of delinquency and aggression, edited by E. Ribes-Inesta and A. Bandura, 147-169. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Dembo, R.1978. Neighborhood relationship and drug involvement among inner city junior high school youths: Implication for drug education and prevention programming. Journal of Drug Education8 (3): 231-252.
15.
Lutz, D. F.1981. Juvenile delinquency and recreation. Journal of Physical Education and Recreation52 (7): 81-82.
16.
Risley, T. R.1977. The ecology of applied behavior analysis. In Ecological perspectives in behavior analysis, edited by A. Rogers-Warren and S. F. Warren, 149-163. Baltimore: University Park Press.
17.
Robert, P.1966. Les bandes d'adolescents (Teenager gangs). Paris: Éditions Ouvrières.
18.
Ross, J. G.
, P. J. Saavedra, G. H. Shur, F. Winters, and R. D. Felner. 1992. The effectiveness of an after-school program for primary grade latchkey students on precursors of substance abuse. Journal of Community Psychology (Special Issue): 22-38.
19.
Smith, M. A.1989. Evaluability assessment. A practical approach. Boston: Kluwer.
20.
Trochim, W.M.K.1989. An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning12:1-16.
21.
Weiss, C. H.1997. Theory-based evaluation: Past, present and future. In Progress and future directions in evaluation: Perspectives on theory, practice and methods, edited by D. J. Rog and D. Fournier, 41-56. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
22.
West, M. A.1987. Student drug abuse in Bermuda. European Journal of Psychology of Education2 (4): 327-336.
23.
Wholey, J. S.1987. Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. In Using program theory in evaluation, edited by L. Bickman, 77-82. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24.
Wiener, R. O.
, D. Wiley, T. Huelsman, and A. Hilgemann. 1994. Needs assessment. Combining qualitative interviews and concept mapping methodology. Evaluation Review18 (2): 227-240.
