A User-Friendly Approach to Program Evaluation and Effective Community Interventions for Families at Risk of Homelessness

Abstract

This article demonstrates how a user-friendly evaluation of a federally funded homeless prevention program using an action research approach--and using a logic model as the analytic framework--informed multiple stakeholders, including members of Congress, other decision makers, and Family Center practitioners. The program's target population was very low-income families at risk of being evicted from public housing. The authors discuss the methods used, the application of the logic model, and the study's findings as they unfolded in four phases: (1) logic modeling as program planning, (2) conceptualizing the intervention, (3) delineating implementation processes, and (4) determining the range of client outcomes. Implications for social policy, social work practice, and evaluation research are discussed.

Closing a Front Door to Homelessness among Veterans

“…In order not to lose sight of the goal of preventing homelessness, Leginski and Randolph (1999) argue that ''careful conceptualization and relevant data are our best analytic defenses'' in implementing large systems initiatives (p. 1257). Others have demonstrated the utility of 'logic modeling' for implementation evaluation, a technique that structures review of links between program assumptions, client needs and outcomes, program resources, and data collection (Morzinskis and Montagnini 2002;Mulroy and Lauber 2004). VA's pre-release planning directive will provide a point of entry for incorporation and assessment of these domains, and a roadmap for evaluation that improves assessment of prevention outcomes through longitudinal studies.…”

A methodology to assess drought management as applied to six European case studies

“…TBE attempts to unpack the black box, in order to understand the mechanisms enabling the implementation of a given policy and its results. The TBE approach has been adopted in different settings and disciplines, like public health (Cho & Witte, 2005;Conner, Mishra, & Lewis, 2004;Donaldson & Gooler, 2003), education (Cook et al, 1999;Crew & Anderson, 2003;Hense, Kriz, & Wolfe, 2009;Nesman, Batsche, & Hernandez, 2007), community change initiatives (Carvalho & White, 2004;Mulroy & Lauber, 2004;Stame, 2004) and child nutrition programs (White & Masset, 2007), but it has rarely been applied to the assessment of environmental policies (see e.g. "Finnish Wastewater Permits" in Mickwitz, 2003).…”

Education for Interdisciplinary Community Collaboration and Development: The Components of a Core Curriculum by Community Practitioners

“…The high-priority items both times included an understanding the theory and practice of coalition building as linked to knowledge and skill sets related to membership, leadership, relationship-building, and organizational structure and processes (Foster-Fishman, Berkowitz, Lounsbury, Jacobson, & Allen, 2001;Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001;Mulroy, 2004). Strategic and technical competencies to be taught include political and planning skills, alliance-building, problem-solving, and goal-setting skills (Hardcastle, Powere, & Wenocur, 2004;Weil, 2005;Hymans, 2000).…”

“…Increasingly, universities are being called upon to work across departments and schools, and to partner with many sectors and organizations in the community. Professionals, including social workers are leading, participating in and evaluating complex universitycommunity collaborations (Mulroy & Lauber, 2004;Soska & Johnson, 2005;Joseph & Ogletree, 1996;Messinger, 2004. ) and are responding to the need to develop innovative and fresh strategies to meet community needs (Alvarez, Gutierrez, Johnson, & Moxley, 2003).…”