Assignment # 3

  

Anticrime/Prevention Program: Part 4 – Management Plan Assignment

Instructions 

DUE DATE: by 10am FRIDAY FEBRUARY 17, 2023. NO LATE WORK!!!

Overview 

This assignment requires you to write a management plan for the chosen anticrime/prevention program. Cover steps 1–5 on in Chapter 4 of the Vito & Higgins book. The management plan must describe the management approach for the previously chosen anticrime/prevention program from the Anticrime/Prevention Program: Part 1 – Evaluability Assessment Assignment and the Anticrime/Prevention Program: Part 2 – Evaluation Strategy/Logic Model Assignment. The Anticrime/Prevention Program: Part 3 – Management Plan Assignment continues to build on this same problem.

Instructions 

Explain the assignment in detail. Specify the exact requirements of the assignment. Items to include are outlined as follows: 

· Length of assignment is 5 – 7 pages

o Excluding the title page, abstract, and reference section, logic model 

· Format of assignment is the current APA format

· Number of citations are five (5) 

· Acceptable sources are peer reviewed journal articles, scholarly articles published within the last five years, and textbooks.  

· The Logic Model will be the same format as Vito & Higgins in Chapter 2.

· You must address the following five (5) issues:

· Are the program objectives well-defined?

· Are the program goals or objectives feasible?

· Is the change process plausible?

· Are the procedures for identifying the target population reaching them to deliver service, and sustaining the service through completion well-defined or sufficient?

· Are the resources allocate to the program and its various activities adequate?

Note: Your assignment will be checked for originality via the Turnitin plagiarism tool. 

47

THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

4
Keywords
evaluability assessment approach
program impact theory
service utilization plan
organizational plan

CHAPTER OUTLINE

Introduction 47

Evaluability Assessment Approach 49

Describing and Producing Program Theory 50

Program Impact Theory 52

Service Utilization Plan 53

Program Organizational Plan 53
Step 1: Defi ne Boundaries 54

Step 2: Explicate Program Theory 55

Step 3: Defi ne Program Goals and Objectives 55

Step 4: Describe the Program Functions, Components, and Activities 56

Step 5: Final Corroboration of the Description of the Program Theory 56

Analyzing Program Theory 57

Link between Program Theory and Social Needs 58

Evaluating Logic and Plausibility of Program Theory 59

Comparing Research with Practice 60

Summary 61

Discussion Questions 61

References 61

Introduction
In this chapter, we focus on the concepts and procedures neces-

sary for a criminal justice program evaluator to examine the concep-
tualization of a program, also known as program theory

.

Program
theory may be expressed implicitly or explicitly. Either way, it
explains why a program does what it does and provides the ratio-
nale that doing so will achieve the expected or desired results. At the
outset of evaluating program theory, criminal justice evaluators may

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

48 Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

be dismayed by the incomplete or nonexistence of program theory.
Many criminal justice programs are poorly designed with errors that
can be traced back to a program’s conceptualization. Th ese errors
are the result of neglecting the objectives and theory in the planning
stages, or implementation, discussed in Chapter 3 . Th is is not always
the fault of program planners. Sometimes the political climate sur-
rounding criminal justice programs does not allow for extensive plan-
ning. Unfortunately, when this is not the case, the conceptualization
of the program theory gets little attention.

In criminal justice, this may be the case. Many times, programs
are borne from familiar or “off -the-shelf” services without a clear
understanding of the match between the program and services
( Coryn, Noakes, Westine & Schroter, 2011 ). In other words, the
match between the program and services and needs is not clear.
For instance, crime programs generally have a mix of education and
counseling. Th e unfortunate issue is that the underlying assump-
tions—individuals will change their behavior due to education or
counseling—are not discussed or made explicit. Evidence has shown
that criminal behavior is often resistant to change from education or
counseling. Th erefore, using only this as an underlying set of assump-
tions may not produce the desired results.

Th e rationale of a program and conceptualization deserves a sub-
stantial amount of scrutiny in an evaluation. Th e scrutiny should
result in an understanding of the criminal justice program’s goals
and objectives. Welsh (2006) argues that program objectives must
be clearly specifi ed and, optimally, be measurable. However, if these
goals and objectives do not match the needs that the program is
designed to improve, at best, the program can only be expected to be
marginally eff ective ( Welsh & Harris, 2004 ).

A necessary function in assessing the program theory is to artic-
ulate it—that is, make sure that the descriptions of concepts (i.e.,
abstractions from reality), assumptions (i.e., hypotheses), and expec-
tations (i.e., ideas for outcomes) are in congruence with the manner
in which the program is structured and operated. It is a rare case that
a criminal justice program will reveal its theory to an evaluator. While
implicit, this occurs because the entire statement of the program the-
ory is rarely written down. For instance, a program designed to pre-
vent juveniles from joining gangs called Gang Resistance Education
and Training (GREAT) has a nine-lesson curriculum that is delivered
to middle-school children. Esbensen & Osgood (1999) argue that the
curriculum was not developed with any specifi c theory in mind, but
they state that curriculum does have its basic etiology from crimino-
logical theory. Even when it is written, the explication of the program
theory comes from an abstract grant or funding proposal that has not
been consulted during implementation or program practice.

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION 49

Criminal justice program evaluators have an important task to
understand and clearly delineate the program theory in a manner
that can be used for an evaluation. Th is chapter will use two views as
guides to help criminal justice program evaluators understand and
clearly delineate program theory. First is presenting program theory
in a way that represents stakeholders’ views and understanding of the
program that makes it workable for a program evaluation through the
evaluability assessment approach. Second is describing a program
theory for diff erent parts of a program.

Evaluability Assessment Approach
Th e fi rst approach is a presentation of an evaluability assess-

ment. An evaluability assessment refers to a method of identifying
and describing the program theory by outlining its components and
deciphering which of them is measurable ( Welsh, 2006 ). Van Voorhis,
Cullen & Applegate (1995) argue that evaluability assessments are
designed to ascertain if a program has a sound theoretical basis, has a
well-designed treatment protocol, has been implemented as designed,
and is suitable for further inquiry such as an outcome evaluation.

Th is type of assessment is important for several reasons. First,
the program theory may or may not be clear. Second, the program
staff may or may not have diff ering views about the program theory.
Understanding the program theory and the views of the program’s
staff are important for the evaluator. Knowing this information, the
evaluator is able to sort out with the stakeholder the program theory
that can be used to evaluate the program.

Performing an evaluability assessment can take many forms.
Van Voorhis & Brown (1996) argue that an evaluability assessment
requires four steps:
1. Identify the purpose and scope of the assessment.
2. Develop a program template that describes the goals and objec-

tives of the program, the theory underlying the program, and the
intended treatment protocol.

3. Validate the program design through interviews and focus groups
with program staff members and stakeholders and through obser-
vations of program activities.

4. Prepare a report that details the assessment fi ndings and provides
the proper recommendations for future evaluation or program
improvements.
Welsh (2006) takes a diff erent focus in outlining the process for an

evaluability assessment. He argues that the evaluator should do the
following:
1. Review the documentation that describes the program.
2. Interview administrators and line staff members.

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

50 Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

3. Read case fi les.
4. Interview program staff .

Th e evaluability assessment may provide information to improve
the program. Smith (1989) argues that evaluability assessments gen-
erally show the problems within a program, including:
● Th e need to clarify the target population.
● Th e need to reconceptualize the intervention.
● Th e realization that few objectives are agreed upon by stakehold-

ers and program staff .
Th e evaluability assessment can make it clear that more work

is necessary to fi ne tune the program. Welsh (2006) argues that this
type of assessment results in a program model that can be reviewed
by program administrators and staff for accuracy. Regardless, if the
intent is to arrive at information from Smith’s (1989) perspective or
Welsh’s (2006) perspective, the evaluability assessment may help pro-
gram staff deal with diff erences.

While this type of evaluation may be used for a single program,
Matthews, Hubbard & Latessa (2001) see evaluability assessment as
a means of improving correctional programming on a large scale.
Using the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CAPI),
Matthews et  al. (2001) examine whether 86 treatment programs are
meeting the principles of eff ective intervention. Th e results of this
assessment show that 34.1% of the programs studied were unsatisfac-
torily meeting the principles of eff ective intervention. Th e main prob-
lem with these programs is that they lack integrity. In other words,
the evaluability assessment shows that the programs are not being
implemented properly. While this perspective is good for improve-
ments, it does not necessarily focus on a description of the program
theory. Th is perspective, rather, uses the program theory as part
of the evaluability assessment to determine the problems with the
program. In other words, the program theory may be lost using this
model. An evaluability assessment may be fruitful for eliciting pro-
gram theory on a program-by-program basis.

Describing and Producing Program Theory
Th e second approach is describing and producing program the-

ory because not all evaluations involve the entire program theory.
Each part of the program may operate using diff erent theories. Th is
approach focuses on describing program theory for diff erent parts of
the program rather than the entire program.

Th e evaluation literature has long recognized the importance of
program theory and its potential uses for formulating and prioritiz-
ing questions, research designs, and interpreting evaluation fi ndings

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION 51

( Chen, 2005; Chen & Rossi, 1980, 1983 ). Chen (1990) writes that pro-
gram theory is important because not using this type of theory results
in an evaluation that is mechanical or uniform without concern for
the theoretical implications of the program’s content, setting, partici-
pants, or implementing organizations. In other words, without using
program theory, the evaluation is only able to determine if the pro-
gram met narrowly defi ned goals rather than satisfi ed theoretical
implications. Chen (1990) notes:

Th e question is of whether or not goals are appropriate for the
eff ectiveness of the program, or whether these rational goals and
procedures could lead to unintended consequences, might not be
considered. Evaluators may sometimes be serving only bureaucratic
interests and neglect the broader implications for human needs and
purposes from the perspective of the stakeholders. To avoid such problems,
a new conceptual framework for evaluation should be concerned with
value rationality and should provide more insight into the real purposes
of a program and its implication for wider social interests. (p. 34)

In criminal justice, evaluations do happen in this manner. For
instance, the early evaluations of boot camps as shock incarceration
fall into this category. Four- to six-month boot camp–like situations
that emphasize military-style discipline and physical exercise served
as a correctional alternative to incarceration in the 1990s. Th e early
evaluations of this type of program only considered the goals (i.e.,
reduce recidivism) ( MacKenzie & Shaw, 1993 ) and not the broader
theoretical implications (i.e., get tough on crime or self-regulation
through self-esteem improvement).

With this in mind, we take the perspective that a program involves
a series of interactions between the program staff and target popu-
lation. Th ese interactions may involve a multitude of things (e.g.,
counseling sessions, education sessions, nutrition, medical services,
etc.). Th ere are multiple interactions in a program. For instance, the
program serves as the organization (i.e., infrastructure, personnel,
resources, or activities), and the target population brings their lives
(i.e., circumstances) to the organization. Th ese factors may infl uence
the success of the program.

Th is perspective brings three components together: impact
theory, service utilization plan, and the program’s organizational
plan ( Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004 ). Th e impact theory provides
instances about the change process and the change in the conditions.
Central to the impact theory is the program’s staff –target population
interactions because this is the only way that the change can occur.
Th e impact theory may be simple, complex, formal, or informal, but
the end result is that change occurred. If change did not occur, then
something is faulty about the impact theory.

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

52 Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

Th e impact of a program does not occur by itself. Programs need
a stimulus to provide services to the target population. To provide the
services as suffi ciently as possible, program staff turn to the service
utilization plan. Th e service utilization plan is vital to a theory-driven
evaluation because it contains the assumptions and expectations for
reaching the target population. In other words, the service utilization
plan provides the proper manner to initiate and terminate the service.

Th e program has to be developed and organized in a manner to
provide the intended services. Th e organizational plan provides a sche-
matic as to how the program resources, personnel, administration, and
general organization are composed and utilized. Th e organizational
plan is a series of hypotheses that tie together the infrastructure, per-
sonnel, resources, etc. to provide the services as intended. Th e combi-
nation of resources and organization come together so that the service
may be provided and maintained. Th e organization and services are
under the control of program staff . Th ese two things—organization and
service—represent the program’s process.

Program Impact Theory
Program impact theory is about causality. Th is type of theory

describes the cause-and-eff ect sequence of events that come from
the program. Specifi cally, there is a stimulus and certain outcomes
that come from the stimulus. Generally, evaluators discuss program
impact theory using a causal diagram that outlines the cause-and-
eff ect events ( Chen, 1990 ). However, it is relevant for an evaluator to
keep in mind that programs rarely have direct control over the social
conditions that they are expected to improve, and this means that
they will have some indirect eff ect for a benefi t to occur.

Th e most basic form of program impact theory takes place in two
stages. In the fi rst stage the services are administered that infl uence
some intermediate condition, and in the second stage some improve-
ment occurs ( Chen, 2011 ). For example, a program to improve alco-
hol abuse will use motivation or attitudinal services to infl uence the
intermediate conditions that lead to alcohol abuse. While this type of
theoretical premise is worthwhile, many programs operate in a more
complex manner. Th e complexity comes with many more stages
between the program and the benefi ts, and this may or may not
mean more than one path to the benefi t.

Th e key to representing any program impact theory is that each
part of the program will have a cause-and-eff ect feature. Th at is, each
service will cause a linkage between some other services within the
program. In the boot camp example, the impact theory is that disci-
pline, exercise, and education will result in less recidivism because
the attendees have better levels of self-regulation.

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION 53

Service Utilization Plan
Th e service utilization plan provides a clear understanding of how

and why program participants became or will become involved in the
program. Th is plan continues to show how the participant will follow
through to the point of completing the program. In other words, the
service utilization plan provides an outline of program–targets inter-
actions from the perspective of the participant, and his or her journey
through the program. For instance, a drug treatment program will
have a specifi c plan as to how counselors and attendees will interact.
Th e plan may consist of days, times, locations, and types of materials.

Program Organizational Plan
As the service utilization plan is written from the perspective of

the participant, the program organizational plan is written from the
perspective of program management. Th is plan brings together the
functions and activities of the program. Further, the program orga-
nizational plan provides management with the expectations of the
program and the resources (i.e., human, fi nancial, and infrastructure)
that are required for the program to function. Key to this plan is the
program services that the management or staff are to perform so that
the participants are able to reap the intended benefi ts. Th e program
organizational plan has to provide information about the sustainabil-
ity of the program, including fundraising, personnel management,
facilities acquisition and maintenance, and political climate.

A program’s organizational plan may be shown in several diff er-
ent ways. Focusing on the interactions between the program and its
participants allows the fi rst element—a description of the program’s
objectives for the services provided—of the program organizational
plan to permeate to the top. If this element does not permeate to the
top, a number of questions may assist in this process:
● What are the services?
● How much is to be provided?
● To whom are the services to be provided?
● On what schedule are the services to be provided?

Th e second element of the program organizational plan is
to describe the resources and functions that are necessary for the
program. Th is includes a description of the personnel with proper
credentials and skills, logistics, proper facilities, funding, supervision,
or clerical support.

Having been exposed to the issues noted here does not guarantee
that it is clear on how to extract program theory. Th e production of
program theory is important to develop a high-quality program eval-
uation. Program theory may be articulated or spelled out clearly so
that everyone understands the theory behind the program. Th is tends

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

54 Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

to occur when a program comes from a criminological theory. For
instance, social learning theory may be a theoretical premise used to
reduce instances of gang involvement.

Unfortunately, all program theory is not well articulated. Th is is
known as implicit program theory ( Chen, 1990 ). Th is type of theory
means the underlying assumptions about program services and prac-
tices are not well discussed and articulated, in the context of theory.
Th is type of program theory provides evaluators the most trouble.

Implicit program theory requires the evaluator to extract and
describe the theory before it can be analyzed or evaluated. Th e eval-
uator has to determine the intentions of the program framers and
stakeholders about what the program should be doing. Th e extraction
of this type of theory works best using a set of steps.

Step 1: Define Boundaries
Th e fi rst step of extracting an implicit program theory is defi ning

the boundaries of the program, which are contingent on the scope
of the program and the scope of the program staff ’s concerns. An
evaluator may identify the boundaries of the program if he or she
works from the perspective of the decision makers. Th e decision mak-
ers should have some idea of the activities of the program and orga-
nizational structures . In other words, the decision makers, especially
those who are charged with acting on the results of the evaluation,
should have some idea where the other decision makers stand on the
reasons why the program exists and how the program should operate.

Th e defi nition of program boundaries has to include all the
important activities, events, or resources that have a link with one or
more outcomes that are central to the program. Th e evaluator may be
able to uncover these boundaries by beginning with the benefi t from
the program and working backward to identify the relevant activi-
ties and resources that may make a contribution to organizational
or programmatic objectives. From this perspective, a drug treatment
program at the local or state level could be distilled as a set of activi-
ties that are organized by a rehabilitation group to alleviate drug
abuse in a specifi ed participant group.

While these two approaches are good starting points, their ratio-
nal presentation may oversimplify the process of extracting program
theory. Evaluators have to keep in mind that programs may be com-
plex. Further, each of the objectives of a program may be diffi cult to
establish. Th is puts the evaluator into a position where he or she has
to negotiate the defi nition of program boundaries with program staff ,
stakeholders, and decision makers. Further, evaluators have to recog-
nize that the defi nition of boundaries is a fl uid process that requires
them to be fl exible.

For example, Esbensen & Osgood (1999) describe the boundaries
of the GREAT program. Th e program is designed to reduce instances

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION 55

of juveniles joining gangs. To address this specifi c need, the GREAT
program is bound to middle-school students, and the curriculum
is delivered by law enforcement. Here, the boundaries are the age
group (i.e., 11–13 year olds) of the students.

Step 2: Explicate Program Theory
Not all program theory is original. Some program theory may

come from prior experience of program planners, research, or prac-
tice. Th is is a welcomed situation for an evaluator because he or she
is able to develop a well-articulated theory. Th e evaluator encoun-
ters issues when dealing with an existing program. He or she has to
work through the structure and operations of the program to derive
the theory. Th is means that the evaluator has to work with stakehold-
ers to bring out the theory that comes from their actions and assump-
tions. Th e evaluator accomplishes this by producing multiple drafts
describing the program theory. He or she presents these drafts to
stakeholders and decision makers to ensure that their approxima-
tions of the program theory are correct.

Esbensen & Osgood (1999) describe the development of the
GREAT program in this manner. In 1991, when the Phoenix, AZ,
Police Department introduced GREAT as a school-based program,
they used D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education) as a model
to create a nine-week curriculum. D.A.R.E. is a program specifi –
cally designed to provide resistance training and education for drug
use. Th is program generally consists of a 17-lesson curriculum that
is off ered once a week in schools. Both curriculums for GREAT and
D.A.R.E. are off ered by trained law enforcement offi cers.

To begin the process of drafting a program theory like this one, the
evaluator needs to turn to several sources for information. Th e evalu-
ator has to analyze the program documents. Th is can be all reports,
mission statements, or goal statements. Th en, the evaluator should
interview the stakeholders and decision makers. Th is will provide
information from both of these respective sides of the program. Next,
the evaluator should perform site visits to observe the functions and
circumstances of which the program operates in its natural environ-
ment. Finally, the evaluator should consult the criminological litera-
ture. Information from these places will assist the evaluator in drafting
a reasonable program theory, but the fi nal verdict comes from the
review of the program theory by the stakeholders and decision makers.

Step 3: Define Program Goals and Objectives
Program goals and objectives are central to program theory. Th ey

provide an understanding of what the program should be accom-
plishing. Th e issue that often arises with program goals and objec-
tives is that they do not also mesh with mission statements, or they

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

56 Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

may not mesh with the responses or needs of stakeholders. Th is
means that the evaluator has to be able to explicate the program
goals and objectives that are realistic to the outcomes of the pro-
gram. An important issue that the evaluator has to keep in mind is the
consistency between the actual accomplishments of the program and
the intended accomplishments of the program. Th is means that the
evaluator should review the major program activities as well as the
written goals of the program.

Th is defi nition of goals becomes part of the program theory;
however, the goals and objectives have to be properly placed in the
program theory. For instance, goals and objectives that bring about
change are impact theory, but goals and objectives concerning pro-
gram activities are service delivery. If the program aims to reduce
juvenile delinquency, this is part of the impact theory, but if the
aim is to off er after-school care for juveniles to reduce unstructured
socialization, then a portion of the service delivery plan is present.

An example of this process is the GREAT program. Esbensen &
Osgood (1999) argue that the objective of the program is to reduce
gang activity and educate juveniles about the consequences of gang
involvement. In a broader sense, GREAT provides life skills that
empower juveniles with the ability to resist joining gangs through
cognitive behavioral strategies.

Step 4: Describe the Program Functions, Components,
and Activities

An evaluator has to be able to properly describe all of the program
functions, components, and activities. Program functions include every-
thing that a program does (e.g., intake, recruitment, etc.). Th ese types
of activities are central to the understanding of the program theory.
Without them, the description of the program theory will be incomplete.

Th e evaluator must also be able to link the program functions,
components, and activities into a logical sequence of events that
occurs within the program. Th is is consistent with the development
of a logic model. In the GREAT program, the law enforcement offi cers
who come to the school to deliver the curriculum engage the juve-
niles in instruction, discussion, and role-playing. Th ese activities pro-
vide the opportunity to introduce confl ict resolution skills, cultural
sensitivity skills, and the negative aspects of gang life ( Esbensen &
Osgood, 1999 ).

Step 5: Final Corroboration of the Description of the
Program Theory

Th e evaluator has to keep in mind that the result of these steps
will be a program theory that is consistent with what the program

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION 57

was intended to do rather than the actual state of the program.
Th is occurs because those involved think in ideal terms rather than
real terms. In other words, those involved with the program tend to
focus on alleviating a social problem, and do not see the faults of the
program. Th e program staff who are further away from the program
will see it in a manner as it should be, and be further away from the
shortcomings of the program.

Th e diff erences between program theory and reality are not
uncommon. Th is is another area that the evaluator needs to devote
some attention. On one hand, without an understanding of the mag-
nitude and nature of these diff erences, the evaluator may make some
erroneous assumptions about the program theory. On the other hand,
if the theory is so perfect that it does not depict reality, it needs to be
revised. Suppose a drug treatment program calls for daily contacts
between a drug counselor and participant. If the program resources
do not allow for this, the program theory needs to be revised to
account for meeting schedules that are realistic.

Because program theory is designed to capture reality, the cor-
roboration of the program theory has to be confi rmed by stakehold-
ers and decision makers. Without their input the program theory may
be irrelevant. Worse yet, the program theory may lead to an evalua-
tion that cannot be useable. Another situation may arise. No corrobo-
ration of the defi nition of the program may lead to a poor defi nition
of the program, or it could reveal competing philosophies between
stakeholders and decision makers.

Th e evaluator needs a clear and concise description of the pro-
gram theory. Th is is the guide to understanding the intentions of
the program for proper analysis and evaluation. Th e corroboration
of the program theory only serves as confi rmation between stake-
holders and decision makers that the program operates as intended.
Th is does not place a good- or bad-quality statement on the program
theory. For instance, Esbensen & Osgood (1999) argue that no part of
GREAT explicitly discusses any criminological theory, but that diff er-
ent pieces of the GREAT curriculum capture parts of Gottfredson &
Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory and Akers’ (2009) version of social
learning theory. Th rough corroboration and interviews with other
academics and program staff this became clear. We will describe the
steps for evaluating program theory next.

Analyzing Program Theory
Analyzing some type of program theory is common, and it usually

takes place in a larger context of an evaluation of a program’s pro-
cess or impact. In the criminological and criminal justice literature,

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

58 Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

little has been written about how to perform an analysis. Th is is
because it typically is performed in an informal manner that usually
comes from commonsense judgments. When the program theory
is articulated well, the validity of the program theory is straightfor-
ward and accepted on the basis of limited evidence or commonsense
judgment.

Generally, programs are not based on simple expectations or
goals. For instance, a parenting program that assigns case manag-
ers to coordinate courses for parents of children with low levels of
self-control involves several assumptions about what it is supposed
to accomplish and how ( Piquero et al., 2010 ). In this situation, the
program theory may be faulty, requiring a stringent evaluation or
analysis.

Effi ciency suggests that an analysis or evaluation of each individ-
ual assumption, goal, or objective of program theory may not be pos-
sible. Th is does not imply that these assumptions, goals, or objectives
cannot or should not be subjected to evaluation or analysis. Certain
tests exist that can be conducted to provide assurance that they are
sound. Here, we summarize the types of tests that may be used to
provide evaluation or analysis information.

Link between Program Theory and Social Needs
Th e program theory analysis and evaluation should begin with

the needs evaluation as described in Chapter  3 . Th is means that
there needs to be a clear linkage between the program theory and the
social need of the target participants. A program theory that does not
have a link with social needs is an ineff ective program no matter how
well it is implemented; thus, one of the most fundamental issues is to
analyze or evaluate the link between the program theory and social
needs.

No set form of evaluation exists to determine if the program the-
ory properly links to or generates a suitable conceptualization of how
the social needs may be met. Th e proper evaluation process comes
from the evaluator’s judgment. To improve the validity of this type
of evaluation multiple judgments from collaborators are necessary.
Th e collaborators may be criminologists, policy makers, or advocacy
groups associated with the target population.

Th e diversity of the group will make a contribution, but their chief
contribution is specifi cation. When program theory and social needs
are described in general terms, the evaluator may have a false sense
of congruence. For instance, when juvenile delinquency appears to
rise during the summer months, some areas may institute a curfew
barring juveniles from being out past a certain time. Th e social issue
of juvenile delinquency appears to be solved by the program of a

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION 59

curfew. In reality, when the program theory or social need is vaguely
written, the evaluator may have a false sense of service.

Greater detail is necessary to diagnose a social need and provide
ample program theory for service. Th e diversity of the group may
be able to bring experiences with other programs, knowledge from
the criminological and criminal justice literatures, or knowledge of
the political arenas for a better understanding. Th is will allow for a
better program evaluation because the understanding of the social
need is much better.

Moving forward to the program impact theory, it is instructive to
remember that program impact theory is a sequence of causal links
between program services and improved outcomes or benefi ts.
Th e main issue is whether the program theory has had an impact
or change on the social need that it is intended to alleviate from the
needs evaluation. Consider for instance, a school-based educational
program aimed at getting middle-school children to understand
that gang involvement is a poor choice. Th e problem this program
attempts to alleviate is gang membership. Th e program impact theory
would show how linked educational modules raise the awareness of
why joining a gang is a poor choice.

Evaluating Logic and Plausibility of Program Theory
Extracting and espousing the program theory should reveal the

major assumptions and expectations of the program’s design. One
form of evaluation or analysis is a simple review of the logic or plausi-
bility of the parts of the program. As with other forms of evaluation or
analysis, a panel of reviewers should be brought together to help per-
form this type of evaluation or analysis of the program theory ( Chen,
1990, 2011; Wholey, 1979, 1987 ). Th e panel should include members
of the program staff , stakeholders, decision makers, and the evalu-
ator. Because of the intimate relationship between these individu-
als and the program, it is advisable to involve informed individuals
who do not have any connection to the program. Th is may include
criminologists, other program administrators, or advocacy group
members.

Th is type of evaluation is not a structured process—it should
be open-ended. Th is does not mean that it should be without rigor.
Th e rigor comes in some of the general issues that the review should
address, including:
1. Are the program objectives well defi ned? Th e outcomes should

be stated clearly and in a manner where a determination can
be made as to whether the objectives have been met. A well-
written objective is that a school off ering an after-school program
will reduce delinquency around the school during after-school

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

60 Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

hours by 10%. Th e panel has a clear objective and a measurable
outcome.

2. Are the program goals or objectives feasible? Is it possible that the
program goals or objectives can be met? Completely eliminating
crime is grandiose, but decreasing crime is much more attainable.
Th e panel has the ability to determine if the goals or objectives are
feasible.

3. Is the change process plausible? Th e program operates using a
cause-and-eff ect format. Th at is, the program will cause a desired
change for a proscribed group of participants. Th is implies that
the program operates in a logical format resulting in a plausible
change. Th e validity of the program theory is the ability of the
causal logic of the program to produce intended eff ects. Th e most
desirable situation would be that the causal logic within the pro-
gram is supported by evidence that the logical links actually occur.
Th e panel should be able to determine if the change process is
plausible.

4. Are the procedures for identifying the target population, reaching
them to deliver service, and sustaining the service through comple-
tion well defi ned or suffi cient? Program theory should specify the
procedures and functions that are suffi cient for the purpose. Th is
specifi cation should come from two perspectives: the program’s
ability to perform and the target population’s likelihood of being
engaged. Th e panel should be able to identify these two things.

5. Are the resources allocated to the program and its various activi-
ties adequate? Th e resources for a program are vast. Th ese
resources include personnel, material equipment, and other
assets (e.g., buildings, reputation, relationships, and facilities).
Th e panel should be able to comprehensively identify the link
between the program theory and resources.

Comparing Research with Practice
A method of assessing the program theory is to fi nd out whether

it is consistent with the research evidence or experience from else-
where. Th e evaluator has numerous ways to be able to perform this
type of comparison. Th e most straightforward manner is to evaluate a
program using similar concepts. Th e results will provide information
as to whether the program will be relatively successful. An evaluator
should use evaluations of similar programs.

Other forms of research may be instructive as well. For instance,
basic research in the criminological or criminal justice literatures may
provide information about the program theory. Th e evaluator has to
be very careful that a balance is struck between the basic research
that does not have evaluation in mind and evaluation research.

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION 61

Both will provide more information that will gain some insight into
the program theory.

Summary
Th is chapter covers the basic information that is necessary for a

criminal justice evaluator to complete a theory-driven evaluation.
Th e assessment of evaluability is vital to the development of a theory-
driven evaluation. To properly determine the evaluability of a pro-
gram, the evaluator has to describe the program model, assess the
opportunities for evaluating the model, and identify the stakeholders’
interest in the model. Th is chapter also provides information about
the production of program theory. Th e steps that are involved in the
production of program theory result in a concise description of the
program theory.

Discussion Questions
1. Identify a program from the criminal justice fi eld. Work through

the production of program theory. Discuss the issues that arise
from completing the production of a program theory.

2. Discuss the steps in performing an evaluability assessment
approach.

3. Discuss the diff erences among a program impact theory, service
utilization plan, and program organizational plan.

References
Akers , R. ( 2009 ). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and

deviance . Boston : Northeastern University Press .
Chen , H. -T. ( 1990 ). Th eory-driven evaluations . Newbury Park, CA : Sage .
Chen , H. -T. ( 2005 ). Practical program evaluation . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage .
Chen , H. -T. ( 2011 ). Practical program evaluation: Assessing and improving planning,

implementation, and eff ectiveness . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage .
Chen , H. -T. , & Rossi , P. H. ( 1980 ). Th e multi-goal, theory-driven approach to

evaluation: A model linking basic and applied social science . Social Forces , 59 ,
106 – 122 .

Chen , H. -T. , & Rossi , P. H. ( 1983 ). Evaluating with sense: Th e theory-driven approach .
Evaluation Review , 7 , 283 – 302 .

Coryn , C. L. S. , Noakes , L. A. , Westine , C. D. , & Schroter , D. C. ( 2011 ). A systematic
review of theory-driven evaluation from practice from 1990 to 2009 . American
Journal of Evaluation , 32 , 199 – 226 .

Esbensen , F. A. , & Osgood , D. W. ( 1999 ). Gang Resistance Education and Training
(GREAT): Results from the national evaluation . Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency , 36 , 194 – 225 .

Gottfredson , M. , & Hirschi , T. ( 1990 ). A general theory of crime . Palo Alto, CA : Stanford
University Press .

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

62 Chapter 4 THEORY-DRIVEN EVALUATION

MacKenzie , D. L. , & Shaw , J. W. ( 1993 ). Th e impact of shock incarceration on technical
violations and new criminal activities . Justice Quarterly , 10 , 463 – 487 .

Matthews , B. , Hubbard , D. J. , & Latessa , E. ( 2001 ). Making the next step: Using
evaluability assessment to improve correctional programming . Th e Prison Journal ,
81 , 454 – 472 .

Piquero , A. R. , Jennings , W. G. , & Farrington , D. P. ( 2010 ). On the malleability of self-
control: Th eoretical and policy implications regarding a general theory of crime .
Justice Quarterly , 27 , 803 – 883 .

Rossi , P. H. , Lipsey , M. W. , & Freeman , H. E. ( 2004 ). Evaluation: A systematic approach
( 7th ed. ) . Th ousand Oaks, CA : Sage .

Smith , M. F. ( 1989 ). Evaluability assessment: A practical approach . Norwell, MA :
Kluwer Academic Publishers .

Van Voorhis , P. , & Brown , K. ( 1996 ). Evaluability assessment: A tool for program
development in corrections . Washington, DC : National Institute of Corrections .
[Unpublished monography] .

Van Voorhis , P. , Cullen , F. T. , & Applegate , D. ( 1995 ). Evaluating interventions with
violent off enders . Federal Probation , 50 , 17 – 27 .

Welsh , W. ( 2006 ). Th e need for a comprehensive approach to program planning,
development, and evaluation . Criminology and Public Policy , 5 , 603 – 614 .

Welsh , W. , & Harris , K. ( 2004 ). Criminal justice policy and planning ( 2nd ed. ) .
Cincinnati: LexisNexis : Anderson Publishing Co .

Wholey , J. S. ( 1979 ). Evaluation: Promise and performance . Washington, DC : Urban
Institute .

Wholey , J. S. ( 1987 ). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory . In
L. Bickman (Ed.), Using program theory in evaluation. New Directions for
Program Evaluation, No. 33 . San Francisco : Jossey-Bass .

Additional Readings
Mercier , C. , Piat , M. , Peladeau , N. , & Dagenais , C. ( 2000 ). An application of theory-

driven evaluation to a drop-in youth center . Evaluation Review , 24 , 73 – 91 .
Wilson , D. M. , Gottfredson , D. C. , & Stickle , W. P. ( 2009 ). Gender diff erences in eff ects

of teen courts on delinquency: A theory-guided evaluation . Journal of Criminal
Justice , 37 , 21 – 27 .

Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2014). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Taylor & Francis Group.
Created from liberty on 2023-01-26 08:48:26.

C
op

yr
ig

ht
©

2
01

4.
T

ay
lo

r
&

F
ra

nc
is

G
ro

up
. A

ll
rig

ht
s

re
se

rv
ed

.

Criteria Ratings Points

Content 10 to >8 pts

Advanced

The thesis or research
statement is well
constructed; introduction
provides sufficient
background on the topic
and previews major
points.

8 to >7 pts

Proficient

A thesis statement is
introduced, conveys a
biblical worldview, and
aligns with the title and
body of the paper.

7 to >

0 pts

Developing

The thesis and/or
introduction are poorly
written or do not align with
the title and/or body of the
paper.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Content
and
Focus

20 to >18 pts

Advanced

The content is
comprehensive, accurate,
and is related to
assignment prompt.

18 to >16 pts

Proficient

The content is either: not
comprehensive, not
accurate, or is not related
to the assignment prompt.

16 to >0 pts

Developing

The content is not
comprehensive, not
accurate, and is not related
to assignment prompt.

0 pts

Not
Present

20 pts

Content 20 to >18 pts

Advanced

The management plan is
stated clearly; is
supported by well-defined
objectives, are the
examples of delivering
and sustaining services
clear; are the resources
adequate, and the section
is organized logically.

18 to >16 pts

Proficient

The management plan is
not stated clearly but it is
supported by well-defined
objectives, the examples of
delivering and sustaining
services are clear; the
resources are adequate,
and the section is
organized logically.

16 to >0 pts

Developing

The management plan is not
stated clearly and is not
supported by well-defined
objectives, the examples of
delivering and sustaining
services are lacking; the
resources are inadequate,
and the section is not
organized logically.

0 pts

Not
Present

20 pts

Content 10 to >8 pts

Advanced

Dedicated Christian
worldview section exists
or is woven throughout the
paper; showing the
integration of the subject
matter, critical thinking,
and Christian Worldview.

8 to >7 pts

Proficient

General tenets of a biblical
worldview are introduced
and convey a basic
understanding of supporting
literature.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

Some biblical concepts are
presented but may be narrow
in scope, not representing
the most essential principles,
or may not be congruent with
supporting literature.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Anticrime/Prevention Program: Part 3 – Management Plan Grading
Rubric | CJUS801_B01_202320

Criteria Ratings Points

Content 10 to >8 pts

Advanced

The conclusion is logical,
flows from the body of the
paper, and reviews the
major points.

8 to >7 pts

Proficient

Conclusion is either: not
logical, does not flow from
the body of the paper, or
does not review the major
points.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

Conclusion is not logical,
does not flow from the body
of the paper, and does not
review the major points.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Structure 10 to >8 pts

Advanced

• Correct spelling and
grammar are used
throughout the outline.
There are 0–2 errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from
the content.
• There are 0–1 minor
citation errors in current
APA format in the required
items.
• Overall paper is
structured per APA:
running head, page
numbers, title page,
spacing, indentations,
margins, and headings.

8 to >7 pts

Proficient

• There are 3–5 errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from the
content.
• There are 2–3 minor
citation errors in current
APA format in the required
items.
• Few errors in paper
structure per APA: running
head, page numbers, title
page, spacing,
indentations, margins, and
headings.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

• There are 6–10 errors in
grammar or spelling that
distract the reader from the
content.
• There are more than 3
citation errors in current APA
format in the required items.
• Multiple errors in paper
structure per APA: running
head, page numbers, title
page, spacing, indentations,
margins, and headings.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Structure 10 to >8 pts

Advanced

5-7 double-spaced pages
of content, not counting
title page, abstract, or
references.

8 to >7 pts

Proficient

1 page more or less than
the required length range
(not counting the title page
or references);
double-spaced.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

More than 1 page more or
less than the required length
range (not counting the title
page or references);
double-spaced.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Structure 10 to >8 pts

Advanced

Ideas from 5 scholarly
sources must be used.

8 to >7 pts

Proficient

Ideas from 3-4 scholarly
sources must be used.

7 to >0 pts

Developing

Ideas from less than 3
scholarly sources must be
used.

0 pts

Not
Present

10 pts

Total Points: 100

Anticrime/Prevention Program: Part 3 – Management Plan Grading
Rubric | CJUS801_B01_202320