IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v69y2018icp61-67.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lessons learned: Evaluating the program fidelity of UNWomen Partnership for Peace domestic violence diversion program in the Eastern Caribbean

Author

Listed:
  • Jeremiah, Rohan D.
  • Quinn, Camille R.
  • Alexis, Jicinta M.

Abstract

To date, there have been a plethora of punitive and diversion programs to address domestic violence around the world. However, the evaluative scholarship of such programs overwhelmingly reflects studies in developed countries while barely showcasing the realities of addressing domestic violence in developing countries. This paper features a multi-year (2008–2011) evaluation study that measured the fidelity of the United Nations Partnership for Peace (PfP) domestic violence diversion program in the Eastern Caribbean country of Grenada. Our findings illuminate organic engagement strategies that were built within existing multi-sectoral partnerships that included magistrate court judges, law enforcement officials, and social service agencies. Furthermore, we documented how the locally-devised implementation strategies ensured the program’s fidelity within a resource-limited context. This paper contributes to the global evaluative scholarship, highlighting the lessons learned about implementing culturally-adapted and theoretically-driven domestic violence diversion within a developing country.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeremiah, Rohan D. & Quinn, Camille R. & Alexis, Jicinta M., 2018. "Lessons learned: Evaluating the program fidelity of UNWomen Partnership for Peace domestic violence diversion program in the Eastern Caribbean," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 61-67.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:61-67
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.03.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917303026
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2018.03.008?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lipsey, Mark W. & Pollard, John A., 1989. "Driving toward theory in program evaluation: More models to choose from," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 317-328, January.
    2. Curtis, Sarah & Gesler, Wil & Smith, Glenn & Washburn, Sarah, 2000. "Approaches to sampling and case selection in qualitative research: examples in the geography of health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(7-8), pages 1001-1014, April.
    3. Dennis, Michael L. & Fetterman, David M. & Sechrest, Lee, 1994. "Integrating qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods in substance abuse research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 419-427.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grant, Peter R., 1997. "The relocation of nursing home residents: An illustration of the advantages gained by planning a new program and designing an implementation evaluation together," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 507-516, November.
    2. Kent, Douglas R. & Donaldson, Stewart I. & Wyrick, Phelan A. & Smith, Peggy J., 2000. "Evaluating criminal justice programs designed to reduce crime by targeting repeat gang offenders," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 115-124, February.
    3. Duesberg, Stefanie & Ní Dhubháin, Áine, 2019. "Forest intensification in Ireland: Developing an approximation of social acceptability," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 368-386.
    4. Davidson, Joyce, 2010. "'It cuts both ways': A relational approach to access and accommodation for autism," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 305-312, January.
    5. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    6. Jerrell, Jeanette M. & Ridgely, M. Susan, 1999. "The relative impact of treatment program `robustness' and `dosage' on client outcomes," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 323-330, August.
    7. Akaabre, Paul Boniface, 2023. "Traditional leasehold of land for residential and commercial use in Ghana: Structure and practices from the Golden Stool," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    8. Thomas-Seale, L.E.J. & Kirkman-Brown, J.C. & Attallah, M.M. & Espino, D.M. & Shepherd, D.E.T., 2018. "The barriers to the progression of additive manufacture: Perspectives from UK industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 104-118.
    9. Anthony Petrosino, 2000. "Mediators and Moderators in the Evaluation of Programs for Children," Evaluation Review, , vol. 24(1), pages 47-72, February.
    10. Rashida Salmani & Geeta Mishra & Ashvini Kumar Singh, 2024. "Acid Attacks in India and the Role of Stakeholders: A Journey From Victim to Survivor," Vision, , vol. 28(2), pages 251-262, April.
    11. Asghari, Shabnam & Heeley, Thomas & Bethune, Cheri & Graham, Wendy & MacLellan, Cameron & Button, Cathryn & Porter, Nicole & Parsons, Sandra, 2021. "Evaluation plan of the 6for6 research skills program for rural and remote physicians," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    12. Geoffrey J. Syme & Brian S. Sadler, 1994. "Evaluation of Public Involvement in Water Resources Planning," Evaluation Review, , vol. 18(5), pages 523-542, October.
    13. Kalpazidou Schmidt, Evanthia & Graversen, Ebbe Krogh, 2020. "Developing a conceptual evaluation framework for gender equality interventions in research and innovation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    14. Victoria A. Johnson & Kevin R. Ronan & David M. Johnston & Robin Peace, 2016. "Improving the Impact and Implementation of Disaster Education: Programs for Children Through Theory‐Based Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2120-2135, November.
    15. Brown, J. Lynne & Kiernan, Nancy Ellen, 2001. "Assessing the subsequent effect of a formative evaluation on a program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 129-143, May.
    16. Allison Hayes-Conroy & Elizabeth Sweet, 2015. "Whose adequacy? (Re)imagining food security with displaced women in Medellín, Colombia," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 32(3), pages 373-384, September.
    17. Xiong, Chang & Chang, Victor & Scuotto, Veronica & Shi, Yujie & Paoloni, Niccolò, 2021. "The social-psychological approach in understanding knowledge hiding within international R&D teams: An inductive analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 799-811.
    18. Goodier, Sarah & Field, Carren & Goodman, Suki, 2018. "The need for theory evaluation in global citizenship programmes: The case of the GCSA programme," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 7-19.
    19. Braver, Sanford L. & Smith, Melanie C., 1996. "Maximizing both external and internal validity in longitudinal true experiments with voluntary treatments: The "combined modified" design," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 287-300, November.
    20. Muninger, Marie-Isabelle & Hammedi, Wafa & Mahr, Dominik, 2019. "The value of social media for innovation: A capability perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 116-127.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:69:y:2018:i:c:p:61-67. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.