U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Evaluation of the Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders Programs Through the Application of Multi- Attribute Utility Measurement

NCJ Number
148481
Author(s)
P C Gardiner
Date Published
1979
Length
83 pages
Annotation
This report presents a preliminary analysis of the use of multi-attribute utility measurement (MAUM) as a method for evaluating programs that focus on the deinstitutionalization of status offenders.
Abstract
Under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, grants have been awarded to various State jurisdictions to help remove status offenders from detention and correctional institutions and to prevent future detention and institutionalization. In January 1976, 2-year grants totalling $10 million were awarded to 11 jurisdictions across the country to develop community-based alternatives for status offenders. Funds have also been provided for mandated evaluation of 8 of the 11 status offender projects. Separate grants were awarded to evaluators located near each of the eight sites. Overall coordination of the evaluation is performed under another grant. Local evaluators must implement the national evaluation design. This report describes the portion of the national evaluation effort that involved the application of MAUM evaluation procedures. The goal of this portion of the evaluation was to define societal values, so that those values could be linked to program impacts and subsequently to help policymakers make sound decisions about the types of programs that should receive funding support and which ones should be cut back or modified. The key to the evaluation is the use of MAUM to assign values to program impacts. Evaluation steps and processing data from the evaluation are presented, and tentative conclusions about the use of this evaluation method are outlined. 8 tables and 8 references