Procedure and Politics in Program Evaluation

Abstract

The use of many evaluative techniques in criminal justice today are based on administrators' commitments, in advance, to the efficacy of specific programs. Two techniques that may be of particular value for these administrators that cannot afford honest evaluation are discussed. Program evaluation in its proper form is distinguished from program audits, and seven minimal methodological standards for good program evaluation are outlined. The hesitancy of many criminal justice administrators to embrace available research methods is attributed, in part, to their past experiences with research which has lacked methodological rigor, and/or has, in the minds of practitioners, been of questionable utility because of its abstract or theoretical nature. An additional factor bearing upon administrator acceptance of research is the use of independent vs. in-house researchers. Arguments for each approach are given, but it is suggested that a combination of the two approaches might be most efficacious. Finally, it is noted that program evaluation should be included in the initial planning stages of any program. Where this is not possible, one may attempt to ameliorate the tendency of entrenched programs to resist evaluative research by using non-threatening approaches to evaluation.