“Post your understanding of the difference between evaluations of program process and
implementation and evaluations focusing on program effects.”
Present literature and research present a discussion on the importance of evaluations, as well as
the process and implementation of programs. By developing the ability to understand the process of how
a program is created, implemented, and evaluated, researchers will be able to assess its impact, success
and/or failure, as well as identify areas for growth and improvement, and even justify continued funds for
the program. When creating a program, it is important to include the process of an evaluation into the
program plan, as the evaluation will help the researcher assess the program’s design, its activities, and its
outcomes (Martin, 2015). Further, according to the CDC (2011), the purpose of evaluations involves
identifying the general intentions, gaining new knowledge about program activities, improving or fine
tuning for future operations, determining the effects of a program, and even to see how the program can
affect self-change on the participants. Throughout the present research and literature, it seems that
multiple authors address the process of evaluations, the quality of how the services are delivered in a
program, and the affects on and/or participation of the participants.
While evaluations can be utilized to identify failures and challenges in any given program,
evaluations also have the capability of identifying how and where growth and change can stem from
regarding failures and challenges, as this could potentially improve the delivery and quality of services
that a given program provides to its participants. In the criminal justice system, this means that
evaluations can help highlight the aims and intentions of a program, for example, improving public safety,
creating a reduction in crime, or even cutting down on individuals being incarcerated, and instead
diverting them towards mental health, therapeutic, community, etc., services instead. Furthermore,
evaluations have the potentiality to help a program to expand, secure an increase in funding, and even
help with making improvements in the services and/or programs provided (Reichert & Gatens, 2019).
Furthermore, Reichert & Gatens (2019) additionally state that evaluations should be held off on until
programs have been operating long enough, so that implementation issues and data can be analyzed in the
effort to analyze the overall outcomes of the program. Overall, the assigned textbooks for this criminal
justice program evaluation course also address the necessity of evaluations and assessments of programs,
just as research on evidence-based programs being implemented in the criminal justice system addresses
this necessity as well.
Vito & Higgins (2015) provide a discussion in their textbook on how evaluations assist
professionals to utilize evaluations to address whether their program has been executed as planned, and to
address how effectively or ineffectively the services have been provided and executed. Identifying how a
program is implemented, whether the implementation is effective or ineffective, and analyzing the overall
results of services provided is the core focus of program evaluations. These authors further address the
three aspects of a program evaluation, which include designing the program, the faithfulness of the
programs, and the quality of the program. Specifically, this is where one must realize that the evaluation is
seeking to identify whether the program was effective or ineffective in achieving the results it was
originally designed to achieve. Furthermore, conducting evaluations on criminal justice programs can be
difficult, as those conducting the evaluations must be capable of assessing multiple programs across a
variety of circumstances, as well as respond to a variety of audiences who will likely require programs
with different designs and methods (National Research Council, 2005).
Additionally, evaluations can help assess whether the benefits of the program are outweighing
and/or exceeding the costs of the program. (Vito & Higgins, 2015). Research conducted by Jones &
Shannon (2021) further supports this notion that evaluations help determine if the programmatic costs are
worth the outcomes of the program that have been achieved. Professionals must differentiate between
how program impacts help with identify the success or failure of program to have met its objectives,
while the program evaluations assess how the program is being implemented to assess whether it has
achieved its original objectives and/or goals. When evaluations are conducted on criminal justice
programs, the professionals working in the criminal justice system can obtain this information by
conducting both a program evaluation and impact evaluation. Nonetheless, conducting both evaluations is
often costly and time consuming in the criminal justice system, and professionals often find themselves
competing for the funds to be able to conduct rigorous and accurate evaluations (Reichert & Gatens,
2019).
However, there is a difference between evaluations that focus on program process and
implementation, versus program evaluations that focus on exclusively the outcomes and/or results of a
program. In brief, anti-corruption programs, while criminal justice related and/or third party related, have
been implemented, but next to none have been evaluated regarding their design, implementation, services,
nor for their outcomes/results. Quah (2021) conducted research on how to break the cycle of failure of
combating corruption in multiple Asian countries – and they determined that breaking the cycle of failure
can often be challenging, however, learning from these failures can help ensure that mistakes are not
repeated. Like this concept, the combination of evaluations for program success and implementation, and
program evaluations exclusively for outcomes of program, both combined can help ensure that mistakes
and failures do not reoccur.
Wierzynska et al. (2020) remind professionals that the steps taken are either similar or even the
same regarding programs, interventions, evaluations, processes, etc.; specifically, it is the analytical steps
that are often similar and/or the same. When one pursues the topic of anti-corruption programs, one will
have to ensure and evaluate whether measures are based on actual evidence, as well as consider the
context of which they are operating (Schoberlein, 2019). This notion appears to be supported in research
conducted by Peiffer & Walton (2019), as in their research they state that with many different
communities in existence, that having different communities will require anti-corruption programs to
adapt differently, due to the community they are implemented in. Throughout these studies, research
demonstrates that process evaluations can assist professionals in understanding how anti-corruption
programs can be implemented, perhaps even adapted, to the different communities they are implemented
into; while also determining what services and/or components of these programs are effective in meeting
the program’s goals, as well as addressing what the areas of growth an improvement are.
Lastly, outcome evaluations can help identify how effective the services are in reducing
corruption in local communities, and what specifically leads to this outcome. Or it could also help
identify how the program was not effective in reducing corruption via the processes or services conducted
by the agency. Researchers may identify more effective approaches, and/or effective ways to adapt
services to each community where their anti-corruption is implemented, which may increase their success
in achieving the goals of reducing corruption in their local community.
1 Timothy 6:4-5, “They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that
result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind,
who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain” (New
International Version, 1973/2011, 1 Timothy 6:4-5). Those who participate in corruption willingly make
the decision to participate in corruption, and small unethical acts can lead to large unethical acts; just as
small acts of corruption will lead to grand acts of corruption. We should choose to not participate in
corruption, not give into the desire of lies and temptations, as they can lead any of us down a path of evil,
corruption, addiction, or even cause us to walk the life path of being a criminal. No one, whether they be
Christian or a non-Christian, should want to utilize their faith, their religious and/or spiritual beliefs for
personal, professional, or financial gain; as that is a form of corruption, a form of abusing their faith, and
utilizing their faith simply to have personal, professional, or financial gain. It shows on the surface they
“appear” to be Christian, but within their heart, mind, and soul, they are corrupt, and they are not a
genuine Christian.
Job 4:8, “As I have observed, those who plow evil and those who sow trouble reap it” (New
International Version, 1973/2011, Job 4:8). The actions we commit, the behaviors we exhibit, the
judgements we give, the corruption we choose to participate in – we will reap what we sow. The
temptation to participate in unethical behavior that is deemed corruption, whether it be to improve status,
authority, power, finances, etc., is a strong temptation, but the gains are short-term. Acts 20:35, “In
everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the
words that Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive” (New International
Version, 1973/2011, Acts 20:35).
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Step 3: Focus the Evaluation Design. Introduction to
Program Evaluation For Public Health Programs: A Self-Study Guide. Atlanta, GA. file:///C:/
Users/bluel/Downloads/CDCEvalManual(1).pdf.
Jones, A.J. and Shannon, L. (2021). The Encyclopedia of Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal
Justice, 1st Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118517383.wbeccj
095.
Martin, A.B. (2015). Plan for Program Evaluation From The Start, Iss. 275. National Institute of Justice
Journal. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/plan-program-evaluation-start.
National Research Council. (2005). Improving Evaluation of Anticrime Programs. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press. ISBN: 0-309-09706-1.
Peiffer, C. and Walton, G. (2019). Overcoming Collection Action Problems Through Anti-Corruption
Messages. Development Policy Centre. ISSN: 2206-303X.
Quah, J.S.T. (2021). Breaking the Cycle of Failure in Combating Corruption in Asian Countries, Vol. 24,
No. 2:125-138. Public Administration and Policy. DOI: 10.1108/PAP-05-2021-0034.
Reichert, J. and Gatens, A. (2019). Demystifying Program Evaluation in Criminal Justice: A Guide For
Practitioners. Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority (ICJIA). https://justiceresearch.dspa
cedirect.org/items/0ebf7091-92b4-4ce3-B66b-065b7f03c687.
Schoberlein, J. (2019). What Works in Anti-Corruption Programming. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource
Centre. File:///C:/Users/bluel/Downloads/What-works-in-MENA-2019.pdf.
Vito, G.F. and Higgins, G.E. (2015). Practical Program Evaluation for Criminal Justice. New York, NY:
Routledge. ISBN-13: 1-4557-7770-9.
Wierzynska, A., Steingruber, S., Oroxom, R., and Bauhoff, S. (2020). Recalibrating the Anti-Corruption,
Transparency, and Accountability Formula to Advance Public Health, Vol. 13: 1-4. Global Health
Action. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1701327.
Zondervan. (2011). New International Version Bible: Large Print Edition. Originally published in 1973.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
