The authors present a stakeholder-driven method, the earliest anticipated timeline of impact, which is designed to assess stakeholder expectations for the earliest time frame in which social programs are likely to affect outcomes. The utility of the anticipated timeline of impact is illustrated using an example from an evaluation of a comprehensive community initiative in which such a timeline was developed using the concept-mapping methodology. The benefits of such a timeline, including for planning programs and evaluations, are explored. Some potential problems that might arise when developing a stakeholder-driven timeline of impact are also discussed.
Connell, J. P., & Kubisch, A. C. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to the evaluation of comprehensive community initiatives: Progress, prospects, and problems. In K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, Volume 2: Theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 15-44). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
2.
Cook, T. D. (2000). The false choice between theory-based evaluation and experimentation. New Directions in Evaluation, 87, 27-34.
3.
Kubisch, A., Brown, P., Chaskin, R., Hirota, J., Joseph, M., Richman, H., et al. (1997). Voices from the field: Learning from comprehensive community initiatives. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
4.
Kubisch, A. C., Fulbright-Anderson, K., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Evaluating community initiatives: A progress report. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, Volume 1: Concepts, methods and contexts (pp. 1-15). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
5.
Mercier, C., Piat, M., Pelandeau, N., & Deganais, C. (2000). An application of theory-driven evaluation to a drop-in youth center. Evaluation Review, 24(1), 73-91.
6.
Pammer, W., Haney, M., Wood, B. M., Brooks, R. G., Morse, K., Hicks, P., et al. (2001). Use of telehealth technology to extend child protection team services. Pediatrics, 108(3), 584-590.
Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., & Walshe, K. (2004). Realist synthesis: An introduction (Paper 2). Manchester, UK: ESRC Research Methods Programme, University of Manchester.
9.
Renger, R., & Titcomb, A. (2002). A three-step approach to teaching logic models. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 493-503.
10.
Sielbeck-Bowen, K. A. (2000). Development of local program theory: Using theory-oriented evaluation to make a difference. Field Methods, 12(2), 129-152.
11.
Trochim, W. (1989). An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation. A Special Issue of Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 1-16.
12.
Trochim, W. (1998). An evaluation of Michael Scriven’s minimalist theory: The least theory that practice requires. American Journal of Evaluation, 19(2), 243-249.
13.
Trochim, W. (1999, October). The evaluator as cartographer: Technology for mapping where we’re going and where we’ve been. Paper presented at the conference of the Oregon Program Evaluators Network, “Evaluation and Technology: Tools for the 21st Century,”Portland, OR.
14.
Trochim, W. M. K., Cook, J. A., & Setze, R. J. (1994). Using concept mapping to develop a conceptual framework of staff’s views of a supported employment program for individuals with severe mental illness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(4), 766-775.
15.
Wilson, J. J., & Howell, J. C. (1995). Comprehensive strategy for serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders. In J. C. Howell, B. Krisberg, J. D. Hawkins, & J. J. Wilson (Eds.), Serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders: A sourcebook (pp. 36-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16.
Yampolskaya, S., Nesman, T. M., Hernandez, M., & Koch, D. (2004). Using concept mapping to Yampolskaya: A case example. American Journal of Evaluation, 25(2), 191-207.
