Improving the Evaluation of Neighborhood Intervention Programs

  • Robert K. Yin
Part of the Environment, Development, and Public Policy: Cities and Development book series (EDPC)


Federal agencies have initiated a whole host of neighborhood intervention programs. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, the Urban Reinvestment Task Force (and Neighborhood Housing Services), the Neighborhood Strategy Areas, the Neighborhood Self-Help program, and neighborhood anticrime efforts are but the latter-day counterparts of earlier Model Cities, urban renewal, public housing, and economic development programs. In each case, the program is aimed at improving a neighborhood site.1 This focus on a collective unit of analysis distinguishes these intervention programs from others that are aimed solely at improving individual persons or households. In these latter types of programs—for example, employment, welfare, or educational programs—the individual person can be the unit of analysis in the design of any program evaluation.2


Neighborhood Intervention Research Sponsor Neighborhood Program Private Behavior Community Development Block Grant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bernstein, Ilene N., ed. Validity Issues in Evaluation Research. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.Google Scholar
  3. Caporaso, James A., and Roos, Leslie L., Jr. Quasi-Experimental Approaches. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. Comptroller General of the United States. “HUD’s Evaluation System Assessment.” Washington, D.C., 20 July, 1978a.Google Scholar
  5. Comptroller General of the United States. “Management and Evaluation of the Community Development Block Grant Program Need to Be Strengthened.” Washington, D.C., 30 August, 19786.Google Scholar
  6. Cook, Thomas D., and Campbell, Donald T. Quasi-Experimentation: Design and Analysis Issues for Field Settings. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1979.Google Scholar
  7. Dommel, Paul R. Decentralizing Community Development. Washington, D.C. Brookings Institution, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. Freeman, Howard. “The Present Status of Evaluation Research.” In Evaluation Studies: Vol. 2, Annual Review Edited by Marcia Guttentag, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. Horst, Pamela et. al. “Program Management and the Federal Evaluator.” Public Administration Review 1976, 36, 220–235.Google Scholar
  10. Milkman, Raymond H., Toborg, Mary A., Perez, Una M., Boyd, Brian. Evaluating Economic Development Programs: A Methodology Handbook. Washington, D C Lazar Management Group, July, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Nachmias, David. Public Policy Evaluation. New York: St Martin’s Press, 1978. Office of Evaluation. “Community Development Block Grant Program: Third Annual Report.”Google Scholar
  12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1978.Google Scholar
  13. Office of Evaluation. `Preliminary Review of the Urban Development Action Grant Program (UDAG).“ Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1979. Office of Policy Development and Research. ”The Neighborhood Housing Services Model.“Google Scholar
  14. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1975.Google Scholar
  15. Office of Policy Development and Research “Evaluation of the Urban Homesteading Demonstration Program: Second Annual Report” Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1977.Google Scholar
  16. Public Technology, Inc. Program Evaluation and Analysis: A Technical Guide for State and Local Governments. Washington, D.C; Public Technology, Inc., 1978.Google Scholar
  17. Sumka, Howard J., and Gardner, John L. “Evaluation of Programs for Neighborhood Reinvestment and Preservation in the United States.” Paper presented at the Fourth Conference on Urban and Regional Research, Economic Commission for Europe, 1980.Google Scholar
  18. Yin, Robert K, “Are Traditional Research Designs Responsive?” In Accountability in Urban Society, edited by Scott Greer, R. D. Hedlund, and J. L. Gibson, Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1978, pp. 293–299.Google Scholar
  19. Yin, Robert K. “What Is Citizen Crime Prevention?” In How Well Does It Work? Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 1979, pp. 107–134.Google Scholar
  20. Yin, Robert K., “Creeping Federalism: The Federal Impact on the Structure and Function of Local Government.” In The Urban Impacts of Federal Policies. edited by Norman Glickman, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, 1980, pp. 595–618.Google Scholar
  21. Yin, Robert K “The Case Study Crisis: Some Answers.” Administrative Science Quarterly, 1981, 26, 58–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert K. Yin
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.The Case Study InstituteUSA
  2. 2.Massachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations