Respond each colleague by doing all of the following:

• Identify the stage or stages of the program to which your colleague’s selected question relates.
• Suggest an additional question or concern that stakeholders may have about program evaluation.
• Recommend an alternative model for the evaluation.

Shalea – first colleague

Theprogram I selected for this discussion is a support coordination agencythat coordinates services for both adults and children withdevelopmental disabilities. This program coordinates, advocates andassist families with program needs and appoints providers to helpprogram participants be able to improve developmental disabilities orfunction in society with them. The program evaluation I would recommendfor agency would be a client satisfaction study. The clients are at thecenter of the program and are the reason why the program is in place.Dudley (2014) states that client satisfaction studies are especiallyimportant when evaluating the implementation of an intervention. Byusing a questionnaire, it will help evaluate various dimensions of theprogram. The questionnaire would be given to a number people on supportcoordinators case load and the providers that work with clients as well.

Theresults from client satisfaction questionnaire will provide helpfulinsight and other ideas about improving the program or clearing upclient’s misconception of program (Dudley, 2014). If will also be ableto provide insight clients feelings and views of different topicsregarding the program itself. Using this type of program will helpstakeholders examine data about program and their outcomes so thatbetter decisions can be made about program design or intervention toaddress social problem (Logan, et. al., 2010). By using clientsatisfaction studies such as the one mentioned, there can be concerns bystakeholders such as clients being bias. Clients may not be able to beobjective about the providers that are servicing them and can easilyblame the providers for their problems which are more of their own(Dudley, 2014). Another concern is the accuracy of their responses. Someclients might put they are more satisfied than they really are. Theseconcerns are valid but the questionnaires themselves can still givegreat insight to what is working and what is not. One way to addressconcerns is to give questionnaires out twice a year or when clientsleave the program. It can help it be more reliable and accurate inregards to client’s views if the intervention is working.

References

Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Logan, T. K. & Royse, D. (2010). Program evaluation studies. In B Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2^nd ed., pp. 221-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (PDF).

2) Andreas – second colleague

Program Summary

Theprogram I have selected for this project is the In-Circle Program, partof the Mississippi Department Protective Services. The program isdesigned for in-home services to prevent removing children from theirfamily home and/or advancing the reuniting process with their family.The central goal of the program is family preservation and reunificationsolutions. The primary recipients served by the agency are thosechildren and pregnant adolescents who are at potential risk of beingremoved from their family home and entering into State custody. Theprogram offers critical intervention (e.g., family-focused teammeetings, case management, and service coordination, one-on-one andfamily therapy, trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy, activeparent, and life skills training, among many other vital services).

Recommendation for Program Evaluation

Thepossible recommendation for the program would include an outcome-basedevaluation. The In-Circle Program gives direct accountability to theDepartment of Child Protective Services and the Canopy Children’sSolution. The focus program evaluation would be on these familiesreceiving in-home services directly from the In-Circle Program (FamilyPreservation and Reunification., 2018). For example, one might startworking with internal employees who are directly involved with thefamilies receiving the services; this way, the evaluation would be moreeffective since the internal employees would be amicable with thefamilies, staff, and the actual program (Logan & Royce, 2010). Theprogram outcomes would reflect on the families being served ultimatelyif the program is successful reuniting the family, which is a successfulindication. It might be beneficial to have a face-to-face interviewwith the recipients and/or give them a questionnaire that would asktheir opinions on the services they have received. If possible, it mightbe necessary to review the documents utilized by the works directlygoing into the homes and offering family services. As indicated above,the program evaluation would essentially show if the program is beingeffective or ineffective with its plan.

Concerns of Stakeholders About Proposed Evaluation

An identified stakeholder are those families who are currentlyreceiving the services. One possible concern with the families is iftheir personal private information is being shared with other agencies,which is a concern. Some of these families may not want to share any oftheir information with other organizations or people, especially thatthey are the recipients of in-home services. It would be essential toclarify to these families that it is the social worker’s responsibilityto ensure the confidentiality of all data gathered throughout theservices provided. Social workers should be transparent with clientsinforming them, to the degree conceivable, about the release ofclassified information and the possible outcomes, when practical beforethe exposure is made (Ethics & English 2017). Such clearness wouldincrease clients’ confidence in the program, being aware that theirinformation is confidential. Another potential concern is the soundnessof the financial responsibilities of the program evaluation. One wouldneed to ensure sufficient funds to direct these program assessments,just as working with child protection services and Canopy Children’sSolutions. Depending on the financial status, there may be a demand toacquire grants and other potential available financial assistance forthe program assessment.

Stakeholders may question the accuracy ofthe proposed program about the information that has been gathered forthis assessment. Thus, it is crucial to work and evaluate those familieswho have finished their in-home services treatment plan. The program’saccuracy would give an understanding that the services are indeeduseful, or perhaps may require modification in the way the services arebeing delivered. This program examination provides a visual roadmap oroutcomes of the program for better decision-making about theintervention’s execution essentially addressing the immediate socialproblems (Logan & Royse, 2010). Another concern might be around thetiming of the measuring outcomes. It would be essential to measure sixmonths post-intervention and twelve months, post-intervention families.Immediate results, or those measured at the end of each treatment, mayor may not have the same results as one would get later in six- ortwelve-month follow-up. Outcome effects are usually measured aftertreatment or post-intervention (Logan & Royce, 2010).

References

Ethics, C. and English, C. (2017). Code of Ethics: English. [online] Socialworkers.org.

Family Preservation and Reunification. (2018). Retrieved October 06, 2020, from https://mycanopy.org/more-solutions/crisis-solutions/family-preservation-reunification/

Logan, T. K., & Royse, D. (2010). Program evaluation studies. In B. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2^nd ed., pp. 221-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (PDF).

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form