Rethinking Program Fidelity for Criminal Justice

• Date: 01 May 2015
• Author: Holly Ventura Miller,J. Mitchell Miller
• Published date: 01 May 2015
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12138

POLICY ESSAY

OUTCOME EVALUATION PROGRAM

FOR FEMALE OFFENDERS

Rethinking Program Fidelity for Criminal

Justice

J. Mitchell Miller

Holly Ventura Miller

University of North Florida

Criminal justice program evaluation has long been oriented around reduction

objectives determined through quasi-experimental and related variable analytic

designs (Petrosino and Soydan, 2005; Shover, 1979). Such purely quantitative

approaches relate program impacts considered indicative of program effectiveness but ne-

glect nonmeasured program drivers informing why or how outcomes are realized. More

often than not, outcome evaluation in criminal justice imprudently assumes that program

results are a function of treatment or intervention sans empirical confirmation. Helpfully,

mixed-methods approaches coupling process and outcome phases have migrated from

other disciplines and offer a more rigorous and scientific strategy for determining program

efficacy.

Mixed-methods research in the milieu of applied criminology and criminal justice

science, unfortunately, is generally underutilized as the objectives and design require-

ments of the process phase are poorly articulated and blurred with the functions of pure

qualitative research. Although applied fieldwork enables an exploration of phenomena

and contextualization of quantitative findings, process evaluation uses qualitative tech-

niques to capture data for confirmatory as well as ethnographic purposes. Accordingly,

the foremost objective of process evaluation is to ascertain program fidelity,aconcept

informing whether treatment services are delivered consistent with program theory and

design.

This essay is informed from various sponsored mixed-methods program evaluations, including the Texas

Legislative Budget Board (LBB 2008 CJ 1001); National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.

Department of Justice (Grant No. 2010-RT-BX-0103); the Ohio Department of Mental Health (Grant No.

07–1230); and the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

(Grants 2010-MO-BX-0055, 2011-RN-BX0004, and 2011-RW-BX-0008). The content and implications should be

attributed to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of these funding agencies.

Direct correspondence to J. Mitchell Miller, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224 (e-mail: mitch.miller@unf.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12138 C2015 American Society of Criminology 339

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 14 rIssue 2