Utility of Process Evaluation - Crime and Delinquency Programs (From Handbook of Criminal Justice Evaluation, P 217-236, 1980, Malcolm W Klein and Katherine S Teilmann, ed. - See NCJ-73970)

• NCJ Number: 73977
• Author(s): B Krisberg
• Date Published: 1980
• Length: 20 pages
• Grant Number(s): 77-NI-99-007; 77-JN-99-008
• Sponsoring Agency: US Dept of Justice
• Sale Source: Sage Publications, Inc
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper discusses process evaluation (formative evaluation) which uses data on program process to modify and improve programming, even as the evaluation is proceeding, in terms of the desired program outcomes.

Abstract

Process evaluation consists of a comprehensive description and analysis of how programs (in this case, crime and delinquency programs) are conceptualized, planned, implemented, modified, and terminated; process evaluation also attempts to assess the quality and purpose of program activities relative to the desired outcome or results of these programs. Process evaluation helps policymakers formulate public policy in crime control and law enforcement areas by producing information on how crime control efforts actually operate and on the forces impeding or facilitating reform efforts, and by permitting the proper interpretation of impact studies of alternative criminal justice reform programs. An analytical model of process evaluation should include such components as context, identification of methodologies and techniques employed by evaluators, intervention, goals, and linkages (e.g., with external agencies or organizations, as well as coordinations within a program). An example of the application of this type of analysis is found in a correctional program consisting of a new method of inmate classification within a jail: the new method is based on a just deserts model which focuses solely on the characteristics of the offense rather than on the attributes of the offender. Process evaluation enables the researcher to examine the program systematically for empirical regularities. Another mode of analysis consists in tracking changes within and between program elements over time. Quantitative and qualitative methods of process data collection are described in detail. The author points out that, while successful collaboration of research and action staff can produce advances in both knowledge and practice, such interaction presents pitfalls (e.g., the tenuous ethical line separating useful feedback from program spying and difficulties confronting program situations involving competing interest groups). Thirty references are appended.