In program evaluation, determining whether a program is reaching its goals is key to evaluating program success. Having an understanding of the stated goals of each organization within a system rather than simply knowing the formal system goals can aid in program development and inform policy making. Evaluability assessments were used initially as a means of learning how Philadelphia delinquency prevention programs define success. Subsequent surveys of programs were conducted to ascertain whether any changes in definitions of success had occurred. Examination of programs' definitions of success over time has facilitated program development and policy making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, Howard E.1979. Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Baird, S. Christopher. 1984. Classification of juveniles in corrections: A model systems approach. Madison, WI: Isthmus Associates.
Brager, George, and Stephen Holloway. 1978. Changing human service organizations: Politics and practice. New York: Free Press.
5.
Cernkovich, Stephen A., and Peggy C. Giordano. 1987. Family relationships and delinquency. Criminology25 (2): 295-321.
6.
Cernkovich, Stephen A., and Peggy C. Giordano. 1992. School bonding, race and delinquency. Criminology30 (2): 261-291.
7.
Crime and Justice Research Institute. 1998. PrOMIS Update, vol. 2, iss. 1. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
8.
Department of Human Services. n.d. Prevention services. Philadelphia: Department of Human Services.
9.
Jesness, Carl F.1984. Jesness behavior checklist. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi Health Systems.
10.
Jones, Peter R., Philip W. Harris, and Mary Poulin. 1998. Fiscal year 1997 report: Prevention program intakes: The first 15 months (1 July 1996–30 September 1997). Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
11.
Jones, Peter R., Philip W. Harris, Mary Poulin, and Jamie J. Fader. 1998. Prevention youth report: Length of stay in programs June 1996-December 1997. Philadelphia: Crime and Justice Research Institute.
12.
McLaughlin, Milbrey. 1976. Implementation as mutual adaptation: Change in classroom organization. In Social program evaluation, edited by W. Williams and R. Elomore. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
13.
Nimmer, Raymond T.1978. The nature of system change: Reform impact in the criminal courts. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.
14.
Palmer, Ted.1996. Programmatic and nonprogrammatic aspects of successful intervention. In Choosing correctional options that work, edited by Alan Harland. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
Patton, Michael Q.1997. Utilization focused research. 3d ed.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
Reynolds, Cecil R., and Randy Kamphaus. 1992. Behavioral assessment system for children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
17.
Rossi, Peter H., and Howard E. Freeman. 1993. Evaluation: A systematic approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
18.
Scott, W. R.1981. Organizations: Rational, natural and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19.
Welsh, Wayne N., and Philip W. Harris. 1999. Criminal Justice Policy and Planning. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
20.
Wholey, James S.1983. Evaluation and effective public management. Boston: Little, Brown.
21.
Wilson, John Q.1989. Bureaucracy. New York: Basic Books.
