- Reducing Underage Drinking – Prepared by Annie Lisowski, 4-H Youth Development Educator
- Technology and Safety – Prepared by Annie Lisowski, 4-H Youth Development Educator
- Community Nutrition Education Program
- Local Evaluation Project
- Developing Youth Leaders – Prepared by Jessica Jens, 4-H Youth Development Educator
- Teaching about the Environment – Prepared by Jessica Jens, 4-H Youth Development Educator
- 4-H Club Leadership – Prepared by Jessica Jens, 4-H Youth Development Educator
- Comprehensive parent education and support initiative
- Water Quality Program
- Water Quality Program with Evaluation Questions and Indicators
- Reducing and Preventing Youth Tobacco Use
Alter, C., & Egan, M. (1997). Logic modeling: A tool for teaching critical thinking in social work practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 33 (1).
Alter, C., & Murty, S. (1997). Logic modeling: A tool for teaching practice evaluation. Journal of Social Work Education, 33 (1).
Anderson, A. (2000). Using theory of change in program planning and evaluation. Aspen Institute. PowerPoint presentation at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Honolulu, HI.
Barkman, S., & Machtmes, K. (2001). Four-fold: A research based model for designing and evaluating the impact of youth development programs. News & Views, 54 (4), 4-8.
Bennett, C. (1976). Analyzing impacts of extension programs, ESC-575. Washington, D.C.: Extension Service-U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Bennett, C., & Rockwell, K. (1995). Targeting outcomes of programs (TOP): An integrated approach to planning and evaluation. From: http://deal.unl.edu/TOP/
Bickman, L. (1987). The functions of program theory. In Bickman, L. (ed.). Using Program Theory in Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 33: 5-18. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Building a Successful Prevention Program Western Regional Center for the Application of Prevention Technologies: http://captus.samhsa.gov/western/resources/bp/index.cfm
CDC Evaluation Working Group http://www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm#logic
Carroll, J., & McKenna, J. (2001). Theory to practice: Using the logic model to organize and report research results in a collaborative project. Journal of Family and Consumer Science, 93 (4), 63-65.
Cato, B., Chen, W., & Corbett-Perez, S. (1998). Logic model: A tool for planning and evaluating health and recreation prevention projects. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 69:8.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (2000). Prevention Works! A Practitioner’s Guide to Achieving Outcomes. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. http://www.preventiondss.org
Chen, H.T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Chen, H, & Rossi, P. (1983). Evaluating with sense: The theory-driven approach. Evaluation Review, 7, 283-302.
Coffman, J. (1999). Learning from logic models: An example of a family/school partnership program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project.
Curnan, S., & LaCava, L. (2000). Getting ready for outcome evaluation: Developing a logic model. Community Youth Development Journal, 16 (1), 8-9.
Flora, C. (1998). Performance based measurement and community building. Rural Development News, 22 (1).
Framst, G. (1995). Application of program logic model to agricultural technology transfer program. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 10 (2).
Freddolino, P., et al. (1998). It’s a great idea but…: Barriers to the use of program logic models in the real world of program activities. Okemos, MI: Michigan Public Health Institute.
______. (1998). Michigan safe and drug-free schools and communities evaluation training workshop, Phase I workbook. Okemos, MI: Michigan Public Health Institute.
Funnell, S. (1997). Program logic: An adaptable tool for designing and evaluating programs. Australia: Performance Improvement Poverty, Ltd.
Funnell, S. (2000). Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitoring. In P. Rogers, T. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. Huebner (Eds.), Program Theory in Evaluation: Challenges and Opportunities, New Directions for Evaluation, 87, 91-101. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Hatry, H. (1999). Performance measurement: Getting results. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Hernandez, M. (2000). Using logic models and program theory to build outcome accountability. Education & Treatment of Children, 23 (1), 24-41.
International Development Research Center, Ottawa (Ontario) Canada. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html
Jordan, G. (1999). The state of the art of logic modeling: Expanding usefulness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Orlando, FL.
Jordan, G., & Mortensen, J. (1997). Measuring the performance of research and technology programs: A balanced scorecard approach. Journal of Technology Transfer, 22 (2), 13-20.
Julian, D. (1997). The utilization of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20 (3), 251-257.
Julian, D., Jones, A., & Deyo, D. (1995). Open systems evaluation and the logic model: Program planning and evaluation tools. Evaluation and Program Planning, 18 (4), 333-341.
Kellogg Foundation. (2001). Logic model development guide: Logic models to bring together planning, evaluation & action. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
Kirkpatrick, S. (2001). The program logic model: What, why and how? From: http://www.charityvillage.com/cv/research/rstrat3.html
Lambur, M., & Mayeske, G. (2000). Logic modeling: A process for enhancing program effects and evaluation results. Facilitator training manual. Crofton, MD: The Program Design Institute.
Linney, J, & Wandersman, A. (1991). Prevention Plus III: Assessing alcohol and other drug prevention programs at the school and community level. DHHS Publication No. (ADM)91-1817. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Substance Abuse Prevention.
Mayeske, G. (1994). Life cycle program management and evaluation: An Heuristic approach, Part 1 of 2. Washington, D.C.: Extension Service, USDA.
Mayeske, G., & Lambur, M. (2001). How to design better programs: A staff-centered stakeholder approach to program logic modeling. Journal of Extension, 39 (3).
Mayeske, G., & Lambur, M. (2001). How to design better programs: A staff-centered stakeholder approach to program logic modeling. Crofton, MD: The Program Design Institute.
McEwan, K., & Bigelow, D. (1997). Using a logic models to focus health services on population health goals. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 12, 167-174.
McLaughlin, J., & Jordan, G. (1999). Logic models: A tool for telling your program’s performance story. Evaluating and Program Planning, 22, 65-72.
Millar, A., Simeone, R., & Carnevale, J. (2001). Logic models: A systems tool for performance management. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 73-81.
Mohr, L. (1995). Impact Analysis for Program Evaluation, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mullen, E., & Magnabosco, J. (1997). Outcomes measurement in the human services: Cross-cutting issues and methods. Washington, DC: National Association of Social Work Press.
Patton, M. (1989). A context and boundaries for theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 12, 375-377.
Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pawson, R, & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Practical Concepts, Inc. (1971). The logical framework. Approach and training materials developed for U.S. Agency for International Development, Washington. D.C. Unpublished manuscript.
Reisman, J. (1994). A field guide to outcome-based program evaluation. Seattle, WA: Evaluation Forum.
Reisman, J., & Clegg, J. (1999). Outcomes for Success! Seattle, WA: Evaluation Forum.
Rogers, P. (1998). Alternative causal models in program theory and evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Chicago, IL.
Rogers, P. (2000). Causal models in program theory evaluation. In P. Rogers, T. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & Huebner, T. (Eds), Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities, New Directions in Program Evaluation, 87, 47-55. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Rogers, P., Hacsi, T., Petrosino, A., & Huebner, T. (Eds). (2000). Program theory in evaluation: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions for Evaluation, 87. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Rush, B., & Ogborne, A. (1991). Program logic models: Expanding their role and structure for program planning and evaluation. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 6 (2).
Savas, S., Flemming, W., & Bolig, E. (1998). Program specification: A precursor to program monitoring and quality improvement. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 25 (2), 208-216.
Scriven, M. 1991. Evaluation Thesaurus, 4th Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Scheirer, M. (1999). Getting more “bang” for your performance measures “buck.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association’s President’s Prize Competition, Orlando, FL.
Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Smith, M. (1989). Evaluability assessment: A practical approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Solem, R. (1987). The logical framework approach to project design, review and evaluation in A.I.D: Genesis, impact problems and opportunities. Washington, DC: USAID, Center for Development Information and Evaluation.
Suchman, E. (1967). Evaluative research: Principles and practice in public service and social action programs. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) includes a seven-level hierarchy that integrates program evaluation within the program development process. It has been developed by Dr. Kay Rockwell of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Dr. Claude Bennett of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, USDA. http://deal.unl.edu/TOP/
Toffolon-Weiss, M., Bertrand, J., & Terrell, S. (1999). The results framework – An innovative tool for program planning and evaluation. Evaluation Review, 23 (3), 336-359.
United States Agency for International Development. (2000). Building a results framework. Performance monitoring and evaluation TIPS. Washington, DC: USAID Center for Development Information and Evaluation.
United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes: A practical approach. Arlington, VA: United Way of America. http://www.unitedway.org/outcomes/
United Way of America’s Outcome Measurement Resource Network. The Resource Network’s purpose is to provide United Way of America’s and other organizations’ outcome measurement resources and learnings. http://www.unitedway.org/outcomes/
Wandersman, A., Imm, P., Chinman, M., & Kaftarian, S. (2000). Getting to outcomes: A results-based approach to accountability. Evaluation and Program Planning, 23, 389-395. Manual available at : http://www.rand.org/publications/TR/TR101/
Wauchope, B. (2001). Using logic models in a multi-site, multi-level evaluation. PowerPoint presentation at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, St. Louis, MO.
Weiss, C. (1998). Evaluation, 2nd Edition, Chapter 3. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wholey, J. (1987). Evaluability assessment: Developing program theory. In L. Bickman, (Ed.), Using Program Theory in Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation. 33, 77-92. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Wholey, J. (1979.) Evaluation: Promise and performance. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press.
Williams, H., Webb, A., & Phillips, W. (1991). Outcome funding: A new approach to targeted grantmaking, 2nd Edition. Rensselaerville, NY: Rensselaerville Institute.
Williams, R. 2002. Evaluation and Systems Thinking. Available at http://users.actrix.co.nz/bobwill/
Yee, S., & Porter, S. (2001). Introduction to logic modeling. PowerPoint presentation at the Fourth Annual Surveillance and Evaluation Workshop. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Office on Smoking and Health.