Due Wed April 1 By 8 Pm Central Timed Dudley 2009 Points Out

Due Wed April 1 By 8 Pm Central Timedqdudley 2009 Points Out That So

Identify a program within an agency with which you are familiar or locate one if you are not familiar with. Summarize the program and recommend an appropriate program evaluation model that would answer a relevant question about the program. Explain the potential benefits of the proposed evaluation, including both process and outcome measures. Discuss 2–3 concerns stakeholders might have about your proposed evaluation and how you would address those concerns. Also, identify 2–3 concerns stakeholders might have about the program itself and how you would address those. Use APA format, incorporating citations and references from the required readings and credible external sources.

Paper For Above instruction

The program I have chosen to analyze is a Youth Mentoring Program operated within a local community agency aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency and promoting positive youth development. The program pairs at-risk youth with volunteer mentors who provide support, guidance, and supervision over a period of several months. The primary goal of the program is to foster positive relationships, improve academic performance, reduce risky behaviors, and enhance social skills among participants. It serves adolescents aged 12-17 from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and operates through coordinated activities such as tutoring, recreational activities, and life skills workshops.

Given the nature of this program, a comprehensive evaluation approach includes both process and outcome evaluation models. I recommend employing a mixed-methods evaluation, combining program monitoring and outcome evaluation. Program monitoring would assess the fidelity of implementation—such as mentor-participant interactions, attendance rates, and activity quality—providing continuous feedback to improve program delivery. For outcome evaluation, a pretest-posttest design assessing changes in youth behavior, academic achievement, and social skills would be appropriate. This approach allows for understanding whether the program achieves its desired goals and identifies areas needing improvement.

The benefits of this proposed evaluation encompass both process and outcome aspects. Process evaluation ensures that the program is implemented as intended, which is crucial for maintaining program integrity and fidelity (Dudley, 2014). It helps identify operational strengths and weaknesses, allowing program staff to make timely adjustments. Outcome evaluation, on the other hand, measures the program’s effectiveness in achieving its objectives, such as reductions in delinquent behavior and improvements in academic performance and self-esteem (Logan & Royse, 2010). Together, these evaluations provide a holistic understanding of program impact and facilitate evidence-based decision making for stakeholders.

Stakeholders might have concerns regarding the evaluation process. For example, they may worry about participant burden—particularly since youth may feel overwhelmed by questionnaires or assessments. To address this, I would ensure that assessments are brief, developmentally appropriate, and conducted at convenient times. Another concern could be privacy and confidentiality of youth data; stakeholders could fear misuse or breaches. To mitigate this, I would implement strict data security protocols and communicate these measures transparently. Lastly, stakeholders may fear that evaluation results might be used punitively or to cut funding. Emphasizing that evaluation results aim to improve program quality and outcomes, and involving stakeholders in designing the evaluation plan, can help alleviate this concern.

Regarding concerns about the program itself, some stakeholders might worry about resource allocation—specifically whether the program receives sufficient funding and staffing to maintain effectiveness. To address this, I would include a cost-benefit analysis component in the evaluation, demonstrating the program’s efficiency and social return on investment. They might also be concerned about mentor recruitment and retention; high turnover could undermine relationship building. Strategies such as ongoing mentor training, recognition programs, and mentorship support groups can mitigate this concern. Lastly, some stakeholders may harbor skepticism about the program’s long-term impact. To counter this, I would propose follow-up assessments at 6 and 12 months post-program to measure sustained benefits, thus providing evidence of lasting impact.

References

• Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. Lyceum Books.
• Logan, T. K., & Royse, D. (2010). Program evaluation studies. In B. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2nd ed., pp. 221–240). Sage.
• Cousins, J. B., & Daniels, H. (2014). Policy, program, and practice evaluations. In J. C. Greene (Ed.), The evaluation consensus: Convergences and differences (pp. 157–182). Guilford Press.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Sage.
• Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Pearson.
• Wholey, J. S. (2004). Evaluation: Promise and peril. Evaluation and program planning, 27(3), 227–230.
• Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage.
• Fitzpatrick, J. L., & Bickman, L. (2011). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An overview. In B. B. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods (pp. 180–213). Sage.
• Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Sage.
• Cambridge, J., & Bragonier, R. (2019). Best practices in youth programs: Evaluating effectiveness and sustainability. Journal of Community Youth Development, 4(2), 95-112.