Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)

Published online 8 December 2011 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/casp.1131

Cross-case Methodology: Bringing Rigour to

Community and Systems Change Research
and Evaluation

KIEN S. LEE* and DAVID M. CHAVIS

Community Science, Gaithersburg, MD, USA

ABSTRACT

Cross-case study methodology is a more appropriate and still rigorous methodology for community and
systems change research and evaluation. It supports learning about effective implementation, commu-
nity capacity building, and resident engagement—all core elements of community and systems change
efforts. It also communicates more effectively to non-researchers and evaluators if, how, and why
community and systems change occurred through the use of a narrative that combines qualitative and
quantitative data to tell a story. The application of the cross-case study methodology, adapted from Yin’s
cross-case synthesis approach, requires five essential steps: developing a theory of change, establishing a
measurement framework that reflects methodological and data source triangulation, developing a cross-
case study protocol and building a database, analysing and interpreting the findings, and communicating
the results. This methodology was applied to the evaluation of the Safe Start Demonstration Project, a
national community and systems change effort funded by the US Department of Justice, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This methodology has all the attributes of scientific rigour.
In this paper, we argue for a reconsideration of case study research by funders, policymakers, researchers,
and evaluators and advance the cross-case methodology as the emerging standard for community and
systems change research and evaluation. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Key words: cross-case study; community and systems change

INTRODUCTION

Community and systems change efforts must take a comprehensive approach to improving the
well-being of vulnerable families and children. These efforts ‘indicate a commitment to change
at many levels, including individual, family, institutional, and community-wide, through
processes that involve collaboration and coordination within the community and between
the community and the broader society’ (Kubisch, Fulbright-Anderson, & Connell, 1998:2).

*Correspondence to: Kien S. Lee, Community Science, 438 N. Frederick Ave., Suite 315, Gaithersburg, MD
20877, USA. E-mail: kien@communityscience.com

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 20 October 2011
 Cross-case methodology 429

These efforts attempt to address complex social problems such as poverty, violence, and health
disparities; and resident engagement and the building of community capacity are core princi-
ples (Conner & Easterling, 2009; Kubisch, Auspos, Brown & Dewar, 2010). Over the last
three decades, the public and philanthropic sectors in the USA have made large investments
in community and systems change efforts, with projects ranging from the Dudley Street Neigh-
borhood Initiative in Massachusetts in the 1980s to the Sustainable Communities Initiative
established in 2009 by the US Department of Transportation, the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. It is no surprise, therefore,
that the funders of these efforts want to know the degree to which their investments have made
a difference. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs have traditionally been considered
the most successful designs for determining attribution or causality.
The use of experimental and quasi-experimental designs, however, is not constructive
for researching and evaluating community and systems change efforts. Random assign-
ment and matched comparisons of communities and systems are difficult, if not impossible
(Herbert & Anderson, 1998; Kubisch, Weiss, Schorr, & Connell, 1995). A large number of
communities and systems are necessary to have the statistical power for significance testing.
In community and systems change studies, there are often more variables to consider in the
analysis (e.g. community characteristics, interactions among these characteristics and
between these characteristics and the change interventions) than cases (Stoecker, 2005).
The number of cases required for probability testing would raise the cost of such efforts to
amounts that the federal government could rarely afford.
Further, well-defined, stable, and rigidly implemented interventions are rare in commu-
nity and systems change efforts. The same ‘intervention’ is generally not being tested
across sites; this is an essential requirement of traditional experimental designs (Campbell
& Stanley, 1966; Cook & Campbell, 1979). Also, the political, social, and economic envi-
ronments within which these efforts occur are often unpredictable. As such, complexity
and evolution are predominant characteristics of these efforts. Experimental and quasi-
experimental designs are not suitable for studying complexity and evolution because these
designs were created to control and predict (Brown, 2010; Patton, 2011).
Finally, as funders, researchers, and evaluators in the USA became more aware over the
last decade of the myriad factors that affect community and systems change, their focus
shifted from determining attribution to understanding how the efforts add value and capacity,
catalyse change, and achieve the desired results. It became critical to learn how the change
was created—not just to prove that the change had occurred—and to examine whether deeply
entrenched societal inequities were addressed (Behrens & Kelly, 2008; Conner & Easterling,
2009; Foster-Fishman & Long, 2009; Kubisch et al., 2010; Westley, Zimmerman, & Patton,
2006). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs are not useful for developing this sort of
understanding (Foster-Fishman & Long, 2009; Patton, 2011). Yet appropriate rigorous
(i.e. scientifically principled) designs of community and systems change efforts are still
needed to justify public support and demonstrate public benefit, as well as provide opportu-
nity to strengthen these efforts that are intended to improve the lives of millions of people.

CROSS-CASE METHODOLOGY

Cross-case methodology emerges as a more appropriate and yet still scientifically rigorous
methodology for community and systems change research and evaluation. It is a

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
430 K. S. Lee and D. M. Chavis

scientifically rigorous methodology because it is adapted from Yin’s (2003, 2012)

approach to multiple case studies and cross-case synthesis. That approach addresses threats
to internal validity, construct validity, external validity, and reliability through the use of a
theory of change, methodological and data source triangulation, rules of evidence, and sys-
tematic case study protocols and databases to ensure consistent and reliable data collection
(Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki. 2008; Trellis, 1997; Yin, 2003, 2012). According to Yin, the
use of multiple case studies is better than single case studies because it allows for more
intensive examination of the same issues or exploration of a wider range of issues across
a number of cases. Whereas the use of multiple and single case studies is common in fields
such as education (see for example Yin, 2005), political science (see for example Yanow,
Schwartz-Shea, & Freitas, 2010), and strategic management (see for example Gibbert
et al., 2008), the cross-case methodology has yet to become an accepted and standard
design in community and systems change work.

Theory of change
The use of a theory of change in cross-case methodology is essential for three reasons.
First, it represents the complex hypothesis to be tested, a central component of the scien-
tific method. Second, it serves as a measure of internal validity, illustrating the relation-
ships among variables and between variables and results (Gibbert et al., 2008). Finally,
it allows for analytic generalization. The issue of generalization in case study research is
frequently cited in the literature. Yin (2003) distinguishes statistical generalization
(i.e. inferring conclusions about a population) from analytic generalization (i.e. determining
if the empirical results reflect the theory behind the programme or initiative). This attribute
in Yin’s approach to case study is well-suited for community and systems change research
and evaluation. The definition of community and systems change efforts in this paper’s intro-
duction emphasizes multiple strategies and outcomes at the individual, family, community,
and system levels. A theory of change is required to clarify which strategies lead to what out-
comes and at which levels. It is also necessary to illustrate the core elements of implementa-
tion across the multiple places or organizations that are part of a community and systems
change effort (Kubisch et al., 2010; Weiss, 1995). The use of multiple cases increases external
validity by testing the theory in different settings and context. Therefore, cross-case method-
ology naturally lends itself to community and systems change research and evaluation.

Methodological and data source triangulation

The cross-case methodology, which is often miscategorized as exclusively a qualitative
method, allows the use of mixed methods (or methodological triangulation) and multiple data
sources to reveal converging and diverging patterns, to increase confidence in interpretation,
and to tell the story of whether, how, and why change transpired. The methods combined
could include statistical testing and qualitative data analysis to answer ‘why’, ‘how’, ‘what’,
and ‘who’ questions. The multiple data sources could include archival records, interviews,
observation, physical artefacts, and surveys (Yin, 2003). Methodological and data source tri-
angulations also allow the cross-case methodology to have construct validity and reliability.

Case study protocol and database

A case study protocol, which is more than the data collection instrument, must be devel-
oped in order to ensure systematic and consistent data collection and analysis procedures

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cross-case methodology 431

to increase the reliability of the results (Yin, 2003). This protocol should explain how and
when the data will be collected, from whom, and using which instrument(s); how the data
will be stored, managed, analysed, interpreted, and reported; who will review drafts of
each case study and the cross-case study and how their comments will be addressed; and
the format for reporting the findings. The protocol should make explicit the rules for what
constitutes evidence and the hierarchy of different types of evidence, otherwise known as
rules of evidence. The protocol should also include procedures for handling confidentiality
issues, responding to potential discomfort or tensions among research or evaluation parti-
cipants, managing group dynamics in focus groups, and navigating cultural and language
differences. The rules and procedures in the protocol increase the reliability of the cross-case
study by imposing discipline on the researcher or evaluator (Trellis, 1997; Yin, 2003). This
discipline is imperative in the cross-case methodology, in which more than one researcher
or evaluator is likely to be involved.
A database is frequently not considered for case study research; yet, it is essential to
organize and categorize the data collected from the outset of the research or evaluation pro-
cess (Yin, 2003). The database in cross-case methodology refers to a system for organizing
and storing the data, and the system could be made up of different datasets containing qual-
itative and quantitative data stored in different forms (e.g. ATLAS TI, SPSS, Microsoft
Word). The database serves to increase the reliability of the cross-case methodology
because it enables another researcher or evaluator to retrieve the data or replicate the
cross-case study at a later date (Gibbert et al., 2008; Yin, 2003).

Communication and usefulness to a wider audience

The communication and the usefulness of research and evaluation findings are generally
not considered part of the criteria for scientific rigour. It should be in community and
systems change research and evaluation because of the wide range of stakeholders and
beneficiaries. Case studies are an effective method for communicating a complex phenomenon
to non-researchers and evaluators (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). In community and systems
change work, the ability for such communication is essential because of the various types
of stakeholders, including policymakers, community leaders, funders, and families—all of
whom have an investment in the outcomes but may not have the training to understand
scientific terms. Cross-case methodology can also be used to create vignettes for use among
these stakeholders. For example, data that show how racial groups that had been historically
excluded and underserved were involved in the planning of the community, and systems
change effort can be extracted from the different sources within a case and across cases to
create a separate vignette about the subject.

PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE USE OF CROSS-CASE

METHODOLOGY: EVALUATION OF THE SAFE START
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

The basic approach to the use of cross-case methodology is to develop a case study of each
place, or organization, that is part of the community and systems change effort and to sub-
sequently use each case as the unit of analysis for the cross-case study. In experimental and
quasi-experimental designs, counterfactuals and threats to validity or rival hypotheses are

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
432 K. S. Lee and D. M. Chavis

addressed by controlling the influences of these factors. In cross-case methodology, they

are explicated, examined, and then verified or rejected (Yin, 2003, 2012).
There are five critical steps for planning and implementing the use of cross-case
methodology in community and systems change research and evaluation:
• Developing a theory of change;
• Establishing a measurement framework, which makes clear the different methods and
data sources necessary for triangulation;
• Developing the cross-case study protocol and building a database;
• Analysing and interpreting the findings; and
• Communicating the results.
The cross-case methodology was applied to the evaluation of the Safe Start Demonstration
Project, a community and systems change effort funded by the US Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), to address issues related to
young children’s exposure to violence and the adverse outcomes on their development
(Kracke, Lamb, & Hyde, 2008). Core elements of this demonstration project were a systems
approach, community collaboration, prevention by early identification of children and
families at risk for exposure to violence, and developmentally appropriate interventions for
children. Eleven communities (urban, tribal, and rural) across the USA received multi-year
funding to participate in the demonstration project (Kracke et al., 2008).

Development of a theory of change

A theory of change for the demonstration project was developed, as illustrated in Figure 1
(Hyde, Lamb, Arteaga, & Chavis, 2008). This theory is illustrative of community and systems
change work as it includes community engagement and community capacity as some of the
components and complex linkages and multiple levels of change (e.g. agency, point of service
for families and children, and community). This theory of change was reviewed by the OJJDP
staff and representatives from the 11 sites to ensure that the core elements of the project were
accurately captured and illustrated. It was used to determine whether the illustrated change
process occurred in similar ways across the 11 sites and the generalizability of the theory.
The implementers and collaboratives in the 11 communities adapted this theory of
change to their specific efforts and context; all the components and linkages stayed the
same across the 11 sites, but the details varied. For instance, in one of the tribal sites, there
were two systems that had to be changed in order to achieve the outcomes—that of the
tribal nation and the local non-tribal government. This theory of change guided the devel-
opment of indicators and measures, data collection instruments and data sources, and
analysis techniques. It also served as the outline for the individual and cross-case studies.

Establishing a measurement framework

A full measurement framework was created for every component of the theory of change.
Part of the framework is shown in Figure 2 as an example (Association for the Study and
Development of Community, 2004). It shows the indicators (signs that determine if the
anticipated outcome has occurred) and measures (units of change) for selected components
of the theory of change. The measurement framework also shows the different methods
and data sources for triangulation.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cross-case methodology 433

COMMUNITY CAPACITY

System Change Activities Institutionalization

of Change Increased
Community
Development of

X-Organization Within Organization POS/Staff

Integrated System and supports for and
Assistance policies, procedures, uses of services to
Agency Change
Local protocols address violence
(e.g. service
National Service integration coordination and exposure and
activities (e.g. cross- integration) decreased tolerance
disciplinary training, of violence
Local Agency & Point of Service
multi-system MIS)
Community Change (e.g.
Resource improved
Engagement &
development, identification,
Collaboration Reduced
identification & assessment,
reallocation Exposure to
referral, follow-up
by staff) Violence
New/expanded/
Assessment & enhanced Community
Planning programming Change (e.g.
changed Reduced
Community
action/awareness community norms) Impact of
activities Exposure to
Violence

CONTEXTUAL CONDITIONS

Figure 1. Theory of change for the Safe Start Demonstration Project.

Developing a cross-case study protocol and building a database

A cross-case study protocol was developed to implement the measurement framework.
The protocol contained instructions on the following: how and when to contact or locate
the data source and collect the data (e.g. a letter to the project director to schedule a site
visit, an email followed by a telephone call to each interviewee), which instrument to
use (e.g. a checklist for the archival records needed, an interview guide for the project
director, an interview guide for the community leaders), how the data will be stored and
managed (e.g. interviews will be transcribed and stored as Word documents within 5 days),
how the data will be analysed and interpreted (e.g. what codes to assign to which type of
data source, distinction between fact and perception), how the findings will be reported
(e.g. a glossary of terms, an outline for each case study and the cross-case study), who will
review drafts of each case study and the cross-case study and how their comments will be
addressed and verified, if necessary, and how the case studies and cross-case study will be
used (e.g. to inform the development of training agendas or the next cycle of grants).
A database was built for each site. For the Safe Start evaluation, every document that
contained data for a site was given a unique label, and a list of all the documents and their
assigned identifiers was generated. The role of the interviewee was identified with a partic-
ular label to allow for comparisons of different groups of stakeholders’ comments; each
group of stakeholders served as an embedded unit of analysis.
For example, the interview notes for Mary Appleton, John Lovejoy, and Cindy Hopper1—
all case workers who were direct points of service for families and children—were labelled

All names are fictitious.

1

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
434 K. S. Lee and D. M. Chavis

Theory of Change Indicator and Measure Data Collection Method and Data Source
Component
Integrated National Amount, quality, and outcomes of Annual interviews with each site’s project
Assistance support received director and coordinator
Frequency of site visits by
national technical assistance Annual review of technical assistance and
team and benefits of the training logs
assistance
Usefulness of national trainings
Adjustments made as a result of
the support received
Local community Sectors or disciplines represented in Annual interviews with key collaborative
engagement collaborative members (e.g. chair, steering committee,
subcommittee chairs)
A structure and process for how the
collaborative operates Annual review and content analysis of
collaborative meeting summaries
Systems Change Cross-disciplinary training Training evaluations
Activities: Service Number and frequency of
Integration trainings Annual interviews with representatives
Number and type of from organizations and agencies that
participants participated in training
Knowledge improvement
Annual interviews with leaders of
Consideration of new policies, organizations and institutions that are part
procedures, and practices of the targeted system
Institutionalization of Approved policies, procedures, and Annual review and content analysis of new
Change at Point of practices forms used by service provider (e.g. intake
Service forms for social workers, reporting form for
police officers)

Institutionalization of Shift in community norms Community survey

change: Community Reduced rates of domestic
change violence Field observation
Reduced tolerance for violence
Construction of a physical Archival records
symbol or memorial for
victims of violence

Reduced exposure to Improved family functioning Parenting Stress Index

violence Reduced family stress Therapist ratings

Figure 2. Example of parts of a measurement framework.

POS1, POS2, and POS3, respectively. The interview notes for collaborative members,
community and elected leaders, and families that received services were given the prefix
COL, LDR, and SR, respectively, followed by a number. Forms were given the prefix
FRM followed by an initial of the organization or agency that used them. Each site’s semian-
nual grant progress reports were labelled with the prefix PR, followed by the period (month
and year). Existing archival documents were labelled with the prefix DOC.

Analysis and interpretation of the findings

The strategy was to codify every piece of data relevant to each of the components and
linkages in the theory of change. A theme emerged when data from several independent

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cross-case methodology 435

sources could be clustered into a pattern, and the pattern was validated by repeated compar-
ison with additional data sources within a case and repeated comparison across cases in the
cross-case analysis. Threats to validity were found if a data source contradicted the other
sources, in which case there was a rival explanation for the outcome (Yin, 2003). Also, the
more frequently a piece of data was encountered, the more relevant or important it was.
Tracking the data sources in the analysis is essential to build evidence and to enable the
researcher or evaluator to trace the steps that led to the determination of a pattern, a theme,
and a conclusion and to create a chain of evidence to demonstrate reliability (Yin, 2003).
Figure 3 provides an example of how this was accomplished.
The above procedure was developed for each component of the theory of change. With
the use of the themes that emerged from the analysis, each case study explained the
evidence that supported or disputed the theory of change.
Each case then became the unit of analysis for the cross-case study. The same analytical
strategy and pattern-matching technique were each applied. The total numbers of children

Components and Linkage Local agency collaboration

• New or improved relationships
Service integration activities
• New programmes co-implemented by two or more organizations and
agencies
Relationship between local agency collaboration and service integration activities
and determination of any rival explanation

Codification of data pieces
The Safe Start project strengthened the relationship between the child welfare
agency and the police department. (COL1, COL2) There was already a
memorandum of understanding between the child welfare folks and the police
even before the project. [The Safe Start Project] put the relationship into action
by way of the new programme they created together where a cop is assigned to
watch out for the children in the room. (POS3, COL3, LD2). The domestic violence
shelter and the police department started to work more closely together, the
project ‘kicked the relationship into a different gear’. (LD1, COL2) Safe start
strengthened the relationship between the mental health clinic and the domestic
violence shelter; they used to be at odds with each other before! Now they
formed a team where a psychologist and a domestic violence advocate are on call
at night and have to arrive at the scene together when there is a violent incident.
(POS1, POS2, COL2, POS4)

Rival Explanation
Other collaboratives have been less successful than the Safe Start collaborative
because they have not demonstrated the same action-oriented attribute. (LDR 2,
LDR3, COL1, COL2, DOC2). There was already a memorandum of understanding
between the child welfare folks and the police even before the project. [The Safe
Start Project] put the relationship into action by way of the new programme they
created together. (POS3, COL3, LD2). The domestic violence shelter and the
police department started to work more closely together, the project ‘kicked the
relationship into a different gear’. I think they tried to work together before, but
there was no coordination. (LD1, COL2)

Theme The Safe Start Project enhanced relationships among key organizations and
agencies, which in turn spurred their co-implementation of new activities. These
new activities improved the response to children exposed to violence and their
families.

Conclusion The Safe Start Project changed the system’s response to children exposed to
violence.

Figure 3. Example of how to codify data, identify a pattern, determine a theme, and draw inferences
within a case.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
436 K. S. Lee and D. M. Chavis

and families served across the 11 communities were calculated. Common and unique
strategies and activities were identified across the sites.
Patterns were examined to determine the common strategies, activities, and community
conditions that led to those sites with higher numbers of children and families served. One
of the patterns, for instance, was the presence of collaboration among law enforcement officers,
domestic violence specialists, court advocates for domestic violence victims, psychologists,
and paediatricians in the more successful sites; such collaboration was limited in those sites
with low numbers of children and families served (Hyde et al., 2008).
The cross-case analysis also identified the unique elements that affected the outcomes in
different sites. The tribal communities, for example, took longer to achieve the desired
number of children and families served because they had to first address the historical trauma
they have experienced as a community. This challenge was not present in the other sites.

Writing the case and cross-case studies

Each case study and the cross-case study were organized according to the theory of change for
the Safe Start Demonstration Project, demonstrating how the change process had proceeded
(or not) as anticipated, and surfacing factors that facilitated or challenged the project over
time. This approach to writing the case studies and cross-case study allows for the interlacing
of evidence from multiple data sources to support the themes and conclusions.
The cross-case study formed the core of the final report to the OJJDP, whereas the 11
case studies were included as an appendix. Implications of the findings were also summa-
rized at the end of the cross-case study and used by the OJJDP to inform the subsequent
phase of its funding to reduce the impact of exposure to violence on young children.

CONCLUSION

The science of community and systems change efforts requires continued and close atten-
tion, and the research and evaluation of these efforts are critical. Funders, policymakers,
and implementers of these efforts know more now than they did a decade ago, but it is still
not enough to ensure the appropriate interventions for successful outcomes within partic-
ular contexts. The example of the Safe Start Demonstration Project evaluation is an initial
step toward refining and perfecting the cross-case methodology for community and systems
change research and evaluation. Application of the cross-case methodology in a community
and systems change effort is not without its challenges. The funding, policy, and community
environments within which these efforts are implemented are frequently fluid; consequently,
a data source or method of data collection could become irrelevant after a certain period. The
researcher or evaluator must be able to adhere to the scientific principles of the methodology
(i.e. eliminate threats to validity and reliability), while adjusting the methods. Two important
areas of improvement for the application of cross-case methodology to community and sys-
tems change research and evaluation are the development of strategies to practise the princi-
ples in the face of fluidity and training of researchers and evaluators to use the methodology.
There is an increasing call from federal and philanthropic leaders for the greater use of
‘evidence-based’ solutions to social problems; however, in almost all cases, evidence is
limited to that generated by traditional experimental and quasi-experimental designs.
Because these designs are more successful in measuring individual change because of

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
 Cross-case methodology 437

the likelihood of larger sample sizes and better-controlled environments, the evidence
promotes individual and not community and systems change strategies. Yet the scientific
evidence shows that most social problems are largely influenced by environmental and
systemic problems. The lack of recognized rigorous methods for evaluating the effectiveness
of community and systems changes initiatives inadvertently focuses attention on changing
the individual (and consequently ‘blaming the victim’) and not the root causes of the problem
at the population level. Funders, policymakers, researchers, and evaluators have to correct
any misperceptions they have about case study research and support the cross-case method-
ology as the emerging standard for community and systems change research and evaluation.
This methodology has all the attributes of scientific rigour and still permits the researchers and
evaluators to engage with the people who affect and are affected by the change over time, an
important aspect of community and systems change work.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Robert K. Yin for teaching us how case study
research can advance the science of studying complex social innovations.

REFERENCES

Association for the Study and Development of Community (2004). Evaluation Workplan. Gaithersburg,
MD: Author.
Behrens, T. R., & Kelly, T. (2008). Paying the piper: Foundation evaluation capacity calls the tune.
New Directions for Evaluation, 119, 37–50.
Brown, P. (2010). Evaluating and learning from community change efforts. In A. C. Kubisch, P.
Auspos, P. Brown, & T. Dewar (Eds.), Voices from the field III: Reflections on comprehensive
community change (pp. 85–118). Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute.
Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Conner, R., & Easterling, D. (2009). The Colorado Trust Healthy Communities Initiative: Results
and lessons learned for comprehensive community initiatives. The Foundation Review, 1, 24–42.
Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field
settings. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Foster-Fishman, P., & Long, R. (2009). The challenge of place, capacity, and systems change: The
story of Yes we can! The Foundation Review, 1, 69–84.
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study. Strategic
Management Journal, 29, 1465–1474.
Herbert, S., & Anderson, A. (1998). Applying a theory of change approach to two national multisite
comprehensive community initiatives: Practitioner reflections. In K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. C.
Kubisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Theory,
measurement, and analysis (pp. 123–148). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Hyde, M., Lamb, Y., Arteaga, S., & Chavis, D. (2008). National evaluation of the Safe Start
Demonstration Project: Implications for mental health practice. Best Practices in Mental Health,
4, 108–122.
Kracke, K., Lamb, Y., & Hyde, M. (2008). The Safe Start Demonstration Project: Knowledge
building to knowledge transfer for children exposed to violence. Best Practices in Mental Health,
4, 92–98
Kubisch, A. C., Auspos, P., Brown, P., & Dewar, T. (2010). Voices from the field III: Reflections on
comprehensive community change. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
438 K. S. Lee and D. M. Chavis

Kubisch, A. C., Fulbright-Anderson, K., & Connell, J. (1998). Evaluating community initiatives: A
progress report. In K. Fulbright-Anderson, A. C. Kubisch, & J. P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches
to evaluating community initiatives: Theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 1–15). Washington,
DC: The Aspen Institute.
Kubisch, A. C., Weiss, C. H., Schorr, L., & Connell, J. P. (1995). Introduction. In J. P. Connell, A. C.
Kubisch, L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community
initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts (pp. 1–21). Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation. New York: Guilford Press.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Stoecker, R. (2005). Research methods for community change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Trellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3. Retrieved 16
August 2011, from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR3-3/tellis2.html.
Weiss, C. H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for
comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J. P. Connell, A. C. Kubisch,
L. B. Schorr, & C. H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives:
Concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington, D.C.: Aspen Institute.
Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. Q. (2006). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed.
Toronto: Random House Canada.
Yanow, D., Schwartz-Shea, P., & Freitas, M. J. (2010). Case study research in political science. In
A. J. Mills, G. Durepos, & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 108–113).
Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: design and methods, 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications
Yin, R. K. (2005). Introducing the world of education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (Ed.) (2012). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 22: 428–438 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/casp
Copyright of Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.