Unit3ProgDev DUE 01/29/20
Drawing on your life experience, recall a time when you were involved with a program. Your role in the program could have been as a staff person, volunteer, or client.
Describe the program and an internal process in that program that might have been perceived as problematic. Recommend a potential process evaluation that would monitor or improve the process. Support your recommendation with a logical rationale for how the process evaluation would be linked to the perceived problem. In your initial post, be clear as to your role in the agency and in relation to the specific program. Also, discuss the roles of the primary stakeholders that are involved in the process.
As a program director of an existing program, you would have the responsibility of conducting program evaluations. The Riverbend City scenario, A Day in the Life of a Human Services Leader, provides some insight into how a program director may need to conduct different types of program evaluations to meet different requests for information. This assignment will give you an opportunity to evaluate the three types of program evaluation to determine how the program is most effective in meeting the needs of a specific population.
In addition, a program director would adhere to ethical standards. For this assignment, you will critique the program director’s application of two ethical standards from the National Organization of Human Services in relation to these program evaluations.
For this assignment, write a 6–8 page paper on program evaluation, based upon the Riverbend City scenario presented in this unit’s study. Distinguish the three different types of program evaluation and identify each of their functions, goals, and processes. Use the Riverbend City scenario to highlight specifically how these different program evaluations are being used and critique how multiple stakeholder perspectives are integrated to meet specific population needs, and how ethics are maintained in the process.
Be sure to include the following:
Your work should integrate the Riverbend City media presentation along with references to your required readings. You are encouraged to support this paper with additional reputable sources.
To complete this assignment successfully, your paper will need to meet the following specifications:
Riverbend City ® Activity
Leadership in the human services world is a demanding task.
A leader must balance a wide variety of demands ranging from the clients, staffing, and funders. To address these concerns and meet the information needs of stakeholders, human services leaders engage in various types of program evaluation.
In this simulation, you will get a sense of how various program evaluations are used to address stakeholders’ concerns. As a human service leader, you will assume the role of the director of Second Chance Riverbend (SCR), a nonprofit human services organization in Riverbend City. SCR is active in partnering with the school system and county court system to provide a second chance program that serves students who have drug arrests by diverting them out of the criminal justice system and into an alternate educational track.
As you review the issues and requests that such a leader receives, consider how different types of program evaluation are used to address these needs.
First, look at a 1-sheet description of the organization. (SEE ATTACHMENTS)
From: Andrew Weiss, Accreditation Specialist, BBB Wise Giving Alliance
Subject: RE: Change in Specialist and upcoming reaccreditation
As I’m sure you’ve heard, Dina Murry, your longtime Accreditation Specialist, has retired. I would like to introduce myself as her replacement.
According to our records, Second Chance RBC has met our accreditation standards for years. Currently, Second Chance RBC is due for a reaccreditation in 3 months. The accreditation standards and processing information is available on our website under the “For Charities” tab. As in previous years, our accreditation process asks for information on governance, effectiveness, finances, as well as solicitation and information materials.
If you have any questions or concerns, please, feel free to contact me for technical assistance. I look forward to being a resource for you in this process.
From: Rebecca Reeves, Board Chair, Second Chance Riverbend
Subject: RE: Outcomes Evaluation
As you are aware, our organization relies heavily on grant funding with a significant portion through the United Way. Likewise, we are in a constant effort to further diversify our funding sources.
In this morning’s email, I found two potential grants that seem to align with our mission.
One grant is specific to supporting success for low-income students. This seems like a grant that would support our First Chance programming. The second grant is specific to supporting engagement across diverse populations. This seems like a possible fit for our First Chance programs specific to the Somali refugee and the Hmong communities here in Riverbend.
While I forwarded the full grant applications to Grant Weeks, Development Director, I am requesting that you forward a program evaluation for the First Chance Program for next month’s board meeting. Since there are new members to the board that are just starting their term, an updated program evaluation would orient them to the First Chance Program. The board will be adding the First Chance Program to the agenda to specifically discuss the development and success of the program along with areas that need improvement or the need for expansion. If you have any questions or concerns about this request or this initiative, please, contact me.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
I look forward to seeing you at the board meeting.
Hi, this is Pat. I wanted to let you know about a phone conversation I just had with a parent who was pretty steamed at us…
Long story short, the parent in question was a Hmong woman whose daughter was suspended from McCrory High last month. After the suspension, the woman had reached out to us and wanted to see if her daughter was eligible for the Second Chance program. She says she called us and talked to someone briefly to request more information, and never heard anything. Then, she called again two weeks later and spoke to someone else, and had kind of a runaround. She says she never got anything after getting two promises. She’s frustrated that she can’t get information or help for her daughter.
I’ve looked back through our phone logs, and I think I can find a record for the second call. Although I can’t tell who took it, the notation just says, “difficult to understand.” While she has a pretty thick accent, I could understand her. I’m not sure how this impacted how the call was processed, but there’s no notation whether a packet was sent to her. It’s bad. I told her that we’d want to try to make this right. I’ll be going to make a home visit to drop off information about the program, and to complete an initial intake to see if her daughter qualifies for our Second Chance program at her school.
While this takes care of this individual, it doesn’t address the bigger issues of our whole intake process, especially the phone log. I think it’s high time that we look at our intake processes, so we can make sure no one else falls through the cracks.
OK. I’ll send you an email with her information if you want to follow up with her directly. Sorry to leave such a long message! Talk to you later.
This question has not been answered yet.
This question has not been answered yet.
This question has not been answered yet.
You have finished this activity.
Now that you have spent some time in the life of this nonprofit’s leader, you have seen the three types of program evaluation: standard-based, outcome-based, and process-based. Each of these reports are specific tools to fulfill stakeholders’ unique requests for information. With this activity, you had the opportunity to review these information requests and the related program evaluation that best serves the stakeholder’s need.
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more