 |
Matters arising Responses by PROP team
|
|
|
|
Matters arising Responses by PROP team
Need for dedicated project management This has been addressed by PROP’s
recent restructuring which saw [Person Z] assume the role of project manager.
Capacity building and increased management and administrative support for the project manager
The project co-ordinator will need to exhibit strong leadership and organizational skills to successfully juggle the demands of
co-ordinating two projects.
TaBle 22. 2 (Continued)
 |
Matters arising Responses by PROP team
Administrative support for the project has been partly addressed by the transitional support worker assuming some administrative duties, however once he has a full caseload this may become problematic
Record keeping and document management for the project and evaluation
Evaluators need to be provided with substantial evidence on whether project files are now in place, including key documents, policy manual, etc.
What this does not fully indicate is that, as a direct result of our feedback, the original project manager – who was the instigator for the funding grant that finan- cially underpinned the PROP and who was inspirational in selling the idea of a highly sophisticated and supportive prison release programme – was released from his job. As it turned out, while he is a great visionary this person was not really suited to project management. Thankfully, he recognized this himself during the course of our continuous feedback sessions and there was no acrimony associated with his depar- ture. We remain close friends to this day.
SUMMARY AND REVIEW
Doing criminological evaluation involves many different variables. It is usually done in teams, with varying degrees of competence, experience, expertise and understand- ing. It is frequently undertaken in the context of a ‘who pays the piper calls the tune’ type of situation that, in turn, demands that evaluators clearly establish their inde- pendence and ethical integrity from the very beginning. It is highly politically charged insofar as evaluation outcomes have funding implications as well as provid- ing fodder for claims of ‘evidence-based’ policy making.
This chapter has provided a basic introduction to some of the key concerns and con- cepts of criminological evaluation. As part of this, the concept of performance indicators was introduced, and quantitative, qualitative and interpretive approaches were identi- fied as potential methods of data collection. The three stories were used to elaborate on certain themes stemming from actual evaluations: (1) politics, in this case referring to a situation in which the results of an evaluation were misused by the Attorney General to cut a programme’s funding; (2) relationships, in which a person hired to do interviews
|
|
|
was totally opposed to imprisonment and subsequently very rude to prison staff that she interviewed, thereby putting other relationships in jeopardy; and (3) consequences, in which a good person and nice friend in effect lost his job as project manager as a result of the findings derived from the continuous evaluation model.
Evaluation research has its dilemmas and limitations, but for criminology and criminologists it is an essential part of the trade. For it is through criminological evaluation that we can best measure – to some degree and with some precision – that what happens in criminal justice institutions, and by those contributing in some way to criminal justice processes and outcomes (such as NGOs, volunteers, academics and others), is what we say is happening. ‘For better or for worse’ is not simply a matter of opinion, basic social values and ideological disposition. It is also determined in the crucible of grounded assessment and honest evaluation.
STUDY QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES FOR STUDENTS
1. Evaluation is often seen as threatening rather than empowering. Discuss.
2. What is the difference between a formative and a summative evaluation?
3. What are the resource implications of continuous evaluation as compared to evaluation that focuses solely on outputs and results?
4. 
There are multiple purposes of evaluation that include the assessment of out- comes, processes, management issues and the identification of current and future needs. Discuss.
5. Why are establishing benchmarks and performance indicators essential to assessing what a specific project, programme or strategy is doing?
6. Evaluating a local post-release prison service
THe Issue
Most prisoners do eventually leave prison. However, very often they find difficulty in gaining access to needed social resources such as affordable housing, employment opportunities and health services. Moreover, spending time in prison can carry with it considerable social stigma. For this reason, government and non-government support agencies are important in providing a stepping stone toward social reintegration. However, provision of such support is resource intensive and very demanding, and there are major questions as to whether or not it works and under
(Continued)
(Continued)
what conditions. Among the key questions are: does post-release support reduce recidivism among ex-prisoners, and how does it address the multiple criminogenic factors of the ex-prisoner?
EvaluaTIon quesTIons
The evaluation is concerned with processes and outcomes directly linked to the post-release process. General questions might include:
· Which services are most useful to ex-prisoners and their families?
· Which processes and practices deliver relevant and timely support?
· Which aspects of the programme/services are most useful in deterring re-offending/ recidivism?
· Which collaborative processes and practices are most effective in delivering post-release services?
Describe other general and specific questions that should be asked in under- taking an evaluation of a post-release support programme, project or strategy. [Hint: the evaluation could also use an Appreciative Inquiry approach to evaluation, which draws out moments of excellence/peak experiences; successful processes and outcomes; and feedback and insights for improved outcomes. ]
|
|
|
DIscussIon poInTs
Data would need to be collected that would show:
· a reduction in anti-social behaviour
· multiple criminogenic factors identified, prioritized, targeted and addressed
· increased engagement with families
· increased support for offenders transitioning from prison
· increased access to support services
· the ability to access stable accommodation for the duration of the programme
· increased employment and vocational opportunities
· decreased dependency on transitional support services measured over the dura- tion of participation in the programme.
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER READING
Bartels, L. and Richards, K. (eds) (2011) Qualitative Criminology: Stories from the Field. Sydney: Hawkins Press. This book provides an opportunity for researchers to reflect on the practical, ideological and ethical issues that arise in the course of undertaking qualitative criminology.
Bowen, E. and Brown, S. (eds) (2012) Perspectives on Evaluating Criminal Justice and Corrections. Bingley: Emerald Group. This book provides a general introduction and overview of different perspectives and approaches to doing evaluation work involving criminal justice institutions.
Hough, M. (2010) ‘Gold standard or fool’s gold? The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(1): 11–22. This article provides a critical review of the idea that one method – namely, experimental criminology – is the best standard against which to compare other research methods when undertaking criminological research.
Shannon, L. and Schaefer, J. (2014) ‘Evaluation research’, in The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Blackwell. This entry provides an overview of evaluation research within a criminological context and as applied to criminal justice.
White, R. (2013) ‘Doing evaluation research’, in M. Walter (ed. ), Social Research Methods, 3rd edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. This book chapter provides an intro- duction and overview of the ways in which evaluation research is carried out, and includes reference to criminal justice issues and institutions.
Australian Youth Foundation (AYF) and Sharp, C. (1996) START: Do-It-Yourself Evaluation Manual. Sydney: AYF.
Bartels, L. and Richards, K. (eds) (2011) Qualitative Criminology: Stories from the Field. Sydney: Hawkins Press.
Bowen, E. and Brown, S. (eds) (2012) Perspectives on Evaluating Criminal Justice and Corrections. Bingley: Emerald Group.
Crow, I. (2000) ‘Evaluating initiatives in the community’, in V. Jupp, P. Davies and P. Francis (eds), Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage.
Hough, M. (2010) ‘Gold standard or fool’s gold? The pursuit of certainty in experimental criminology’, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(1): 11–22.
Murray, G., Homel, R., Wimshurst, K., Prenzler, T. and O’Connor, I. (1993) A Framework for Evaluating Community-Based Juvenile Crime Prevention Programs. Research and Policy Paper No. 4, Centre for Crime Policy and Public Safety, Griffith University, Queensland.
Queensland Government (2016) Criminal Justice Evaluation Framework. Available at: www. premiers. qld. gov. au/publications/categories/guides/criminal-justice. aspx (accessed 2 May 2018).
Shannon, L. and Schaefer, J. (2014) ‘Evaluation research’, in The Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tilley, N. (2000) ‘Doing realistic evaluation of criminal justice’, in V. Jupp, P. Davies and
P. Francis (eds), Doing Criminological Research. London: Sage.
Wadsworth, Y. (1991) Everyday Evaluation on the Run. Melbourne: Action Research Issues Association (Inc. ).
|
|
|
Walter, M. (ed. ) (2013a) Social Research Methods. Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Walter, M. (2013b) ‘The nature of social science research’, in M. Walter (ed. ), Social
Research Methods. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
White, R. (2011) Evaluating the Australian Red Cross Peer Support Program. Hobart: Criminology Research Unit, School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania and Australian Red Cross, Canberra.
White, R. (2013) ‘Doing evaluation research’, in M. Walter (ed. ), Social Research Methods, 3rd edition. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
White, R. and Coventry, G. (2000) Evaluating Community Safety: A Guide. Melbourne: Crime Prevention Victoria, Department of Justice.
White, R. and Mason, R. (2003) An Evaluation of the ‘Inside Out’ Prison Program. Occasional Paper No. 2, Criminology Research Unit, School of Sociology and Social Work, University of Tasmania.
White, R., Heckenberg, D. and O’Halloran, N. (2011) Evaluation of the Post Release Options Program. Hobart: School of Sociology and Social Work, UTAS and Bethlehem House, Hobart.
Wilson, G. and Wright, M. (1993) Evaluation Framework: Women’s Health Services and Centres against Sexual Assault. Melbourne: Centre for Development and Innovation in Health.
|
|
|
