This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Farrington, D. P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Evaluating ‘Communities that Care’

Realistic Scientific Considerations

Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge

I am very grateful to the editor for the opportunity to reply to Pawson and Tilley's (1998) critical comments on my proposals (Farrington, 1997) for evaluating Communities that Care (CTC) in the UK. Of course, I agree that it is valuable to compare alternative research designs. However, I think that most of Pawson and Tilley's comments are based on assumptions about the nature of CTC that differ greatly from the assumptions on which my article was based. Briefly, whereas I assumed that CTC was a well-developed technology that was ready to be tested, Pawson and Tilley assumed that it was an iterative, evolving, ill-defined, highly variable procedure that essentially required further exploratory and developmental work. However, it seems to me that these comments apply far more to a ‘scientific realism’ evaluation than to CTC. I should perhaps add at the outset that I have no personal stake in CTC and suggested it mainly because I thought that it was the best-developed vehicle for delivering risk-focused prevention, which I strongly recommended.

Evaluation, Vol. 4, No. 2, 204-210 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/13563899822208536


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. M. van der Knaap, F. L. Leeuw, S. Bogaerts, and L. T. J. Nijssen Combining Campbell Standards and the Realist Evaluation Approach: The Best of Two Worlds? American Journal of Evaluation, March 1, 2008; 29(1): 48 - 57. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P. Raynor Community penalties and Home Office research: On the way back to `nothing works'? JCriminology and Criminal Justice, February 1, 2008; 8(1): 73 - 87. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Tilley Applying theory-driven evaluation to the British Crime Reduction Programme: The theories of the programme and of its evaluations JCriminology and Criminal Justice, August 1, 2004; 4(3): 255 - 276. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. P. Farrington Methodological Quality Standards for Evaluation Research The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1, 2003; 587(1): 49 - 68. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Mays, S. Wyke, and D. Evans The Evaluation of Complex Health Policy: Lessons from the UK Total Purchasing Experiment Evaluation, October 1, 2001; 7(4): 405 - 426. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Q. Patton Book Review: Realistic Evaluation American Journal of Evaluation, June 1, 1999; 20(2): 385 - 388. [PDF]