|
Using the Key Dimensions To Organize Evaluation
Questions
The separate and combined roles of the prosecutor and the community
in community prosecution strategies may be examined in terms of
each of the key dimensions of community prosecution. The descriptive,
structural dimensions of the community prosecution model help to
establish categories of presumed impact that should be measurable
and take into account the parts played by the prosecutor and the
community.
Table 3 distinguishes between
implementation- and outcome-related objectives because it is difficult
to gauge an innovation’s impact without measuring the extent
to which planned aspects of the program are in place. Many, if not
all, community prosecution programs are young and evolving, and
evaluation strategies should consider a program’s relative
maturity when measuring results. In short, community prosecution
programs should be evaluated based on their achievement of implementation-stage
goals first and on measurable results after the planned strategy
is successfully implemented.
As an innovation, community prosecution represents elements unique
to prosecution and its relationship with the community. It also
shares goals, problems, and methods in common with other community
justice initiatives such as community policing, community courts,
and community probation. Efforts to measure the impact of community
prosecution initiatives can both draw on lessons learned in evaluating
innovations in related community justice areas and address the unique
features of community prosecution.
|
The prosecutor and the community must be viewed
as both agents and targets of change.
|
Analysis suggests that an evaluation framework must begin by identifying
the key dimensions of the community prosecution approach to frame
performance measurement appropriately. The structure of community
prosecution strategies presented in table
3 is one such useful framework for evaluation, one that can
be refined through feedback from jurisdictions involved in community
prosecution and participants in the process. The proliferation and
diversity of community prosecution programs underscore the need
for rigorous assessment of their impact. Evaluation can provide
jurisdictions with data to assess the strengths and weaknesses of
various elements and approaches and contribute to the development
of best practices for community prosecution initiatives across the
nation.
Table 3. Implementation and Outcomes of Community Prosecution
| Key Dimensions |
Prosecution Function |
Community Role |
Interaction of Both |
| Target Problems |
Implementation
|
Types/number of problems identified.
Strategies implemented to address problems.
|
Input in defining
problems.
Participation in devising/
implementing strategies.
|
Collaboration in identifying problems.
Collaboration in devising/implementing strategies.
|
| Outcomes |
Outcomes per problem area. |
Community improvement.
Accountability.
Satisfaction with outcomes.
|
Problems successfully
addressed. |
| Target Area |
| Implementation |
Services, actions added
per geographic area. |
Cooperation,
assistance. |
Defining, agreeing
to area. |
| Outcomes |
Improved measures of target problems
in geographic area. |
Improved working
relationship. |
|
| Role of Community |
| Implementation |
Types/methods/frequency of involvement.
Problems identified.
Suggested strategies.
|
Types/methods/frequency
of involvement.
Community access.
Suggested strategies.
|
Access to government and policy formulation. |
| Outcomes |
Improved community
links.
Improved satisfaction.
Improved impact on target
problems.
|
Improved community
access/participation.
Improved satisfaction.
Impact on target areas.
Improved accountability.
|
Improved communication on crime/related problems.
Ownership.
|
| Content of Response to Community |
| Implementation |
Specific programs, components, services
added. |
Specific role (cooperation, participant,
recipient). |
Project-specific functions. |
| Outcomes |
Impact of specific programs. |
Community view of success. |
Measure of success, impact. |
| Organization of Prosecutor’s
Office |
| Implementation |
Geographic assignment.
Reorganization.
New procedures/staff
assessment/values.
New programs.
|
Organization, representation.
Areas/neighborhoods.
Access to prosecutor/other
agencies/resources.
|
New partnerships.
Improved prosecution.
|
| Outcomes |
Effectiveness,
efficiency.
Relative costs.
Culture change/acceptance.
Impact of new procedures.
Improved reputation. |
Effectiveness of procedures
for participation. |
New procedures for
collaboration. |
| Case Processing |
| Implementation |
Content of workday.
Community contact/outreach.
Identification of problems.
Litigation/vertical.
|
|
|
| Outcomes |
Community contacts.
Problems identified.
Strategies decided.
Matters addressed/type.
Resolutions/cases/types.
Staff satisfaction.
|
|
|
| Collaboration |
| Implementation |
New working relationships with agencies, organizations.
Expanded planning.
Added multiagency services.
|
New overall working
relationship. |
New planning, problem-solving role. |
| Outcomes |
Impact of collaboration on services
and outcomes/problems. |
|
Routine interaction, growth of relationship. |
|
