Brinkerhoff's Success Case Method (SCM) was developed with the specific purpose of assessing the impact of organizational interventions (e.g., training and coaching) on business goals by analyzing extreme groups using case study techniques and storytelling. As an efficient and cost-effective method of evaluative inquiry, SCM is attractive in other contexts as well, although few examples of such uses are to be found in the published literature. However, modifications of the SCM concept and design are sometimes necessary for implementing the approach in nonprofit environments where business goals are not necessarily an explicit objective. This method note demonstrates how SCM was modified and extended to a social service context, in which the program evaluated was aimed at reducing chronic homelessness and unemployment. Modifications included defining success in a nonprofit setting and adding a time-series element to the design features of traditional SCM to increase methodological rigor.
Berkley, T., Day, G., Smith, S., & Chianca, T.K. (2005, October). Using Success Case Method to assess hard to measures outcomes within a foundation-wide organizational development initiative . Paper presented at the meeting of the American Evaluation Association/Canadian Evaluation Society, Toronto , Ontario, Canada.
2.
Brinkerhoff, R.O. (2003). The success case method: Find out quickly what's working and what's not. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler.
3.
Brinkerhoff, R.O. (2005, October). Making a causal argument for training impact. Paper presented at The Evaluation Center's Evaluation Café, Kalamazoo, MI.
4.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. BotsonHoughton Mifflin.
5.
Chianca, T.K., & Risley, J.S. (2005, October). Applying the success case method as part of the institutional evaluation of a nonprofit organization. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Evaluation Association/Canadian Evaluation Society, Toronto, Ontario , Canada.
6.
Coryn, C.L.S., Gugiu, P.C., Davidson, E.J., & Schröter, D.C. (2008). Assessing needs in hidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 7(1), 3-11.
7.
Coryn, C.L.S., Schröter, D.C., Miron, G., Kana'iaupuni, S.K., Tibbets, K., Watkins-Victorino, L.M., et al. (2007). A study of successful schools for Hawaiians: Identifying that which matters. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University, The Evaluation Center.
8.
Davidson, E.J. (2000). Ascertaining causality in theory-based evaluation . In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hasci, A. Petrosino , & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), Program theory in evaluation challenges and opportunities: New directions for evaluation, 87 (pp. 17-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
9.
Davidson, E.J. (2005). Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts and bolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
Davidson, E.J. (2006). The RCTs-only doctrine: Brakes on the acquisition of knowledge? Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 3(6), ii-v.
11.
Davidson, E.J. (2007). Unlearning some of our social scientists habits . Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 4(8), iii-vi.
12.
Donaldson, S.I., & Christie, C.A. (2005, October). The 2004 Claremont debate: Lipsey vs. Scriven-Determining causality in program evaluation and applied research: Should experimental evidence be the gold standard? Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 2(3), 60-77.
13.
Greene, J.C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
14.
Julnes, G., & Rog, D. J. (Eds.). (2007). Informing federal policies on evaluation methodology: Building the evidence base for method choice in government sponsored evaluation: New Directions for Evaluation, No. 113. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schröter, D.C., & Coryn, C.L.S. (2005, October). The Success Case Method in human and social service contexts: A different meaning of the terms success and return on investment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Evaluation Association/Canadian Evaluation Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
20.
Scriven, M. (1976). Maximizing the power of causal investigations: The modus operandi method. In G. V. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation studies review annual (Vol. 1, pp. 101-118). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Scriven, M. (2006a). Can we infer causation from cross-sectional data ? Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.7.nationalacademies.org/bota/School-LevelData_MichaelScriven-Paper.pdf
22.
Scriven, M. (2006b, September). The latest battle in the war over research designs for establishing causation. Paper presented at The Evaluation Center's Evaluation Café series, Kalamazoo, MI.
23.
Scriven, M. (2008). A summative evaluation of RCT methodology & an alternative approach to causal research. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 5(9), 11-24.
24.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
Stallworth, Y., & Roberts-Gray, C. (1987). Reporting to the busy decision maker. American Journal of Evaluation, 8, 31-35.
26.
Stufflebeam, D.L. (2002). CIPP evaluation model checklist. Retrieved November 25, 2005, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/cippchecklist.pdf
27.
Yates, B.T. (1996). Analyzing costs, procedures, and outcomes in human services (Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
28.
Yin, R.K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
