Program theory and logic model to address the co-occurrence of domestic violence and child maltreatment
Social work and child welfare practitioners have long confronted the reality that child maltreatment and domestic violence often coexist within families. However, services for the victims of these types of family violence have been fragmented, forcing victims to go to multiple agencies for assistance. The purpose of this paper is to describe the program theory and logic model developed to guide evaluation of the St. Louis County Greenbook Collaboration to Address Domestic Violence & Child Maltreatment, together with an assessment of the use of this approach as applied to a comprehensive community initiative. Both the program theory guiding the collaboration and the logic model developed from the program theory are described. Data are drawn from qualitative documents produced in conjunction with collaboration participants. The findings suggest that a program theory and logic model approach to program planning is difficult to develop with large collaborations. Such methods may not be useful to program stakeholders. Further, attempting to use a graphic to portray a program may do a disservice to the complex ways in which many of the strategies and outcomes overlap in a community-wide collaboration.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- McLaughlin, John A. & Jordan, Gretchen B., 1999. "Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 65-72.
- Adler, Marina A., 2002. "The utility of modeling in evaluation planning: the case of the coordination of domestic violence services in Maryland," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 203-213, August.
- Kaplan, Sue A. & Garrett, Katherine E., 2005. "The use of logic models by community-based initiatives," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 167-172, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:33:y:2010:i:4:p:356-364. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.