Evaluation Design Of Mosholu Montefiore Community Center’s S

Evaluation Design of Mosholu Montefiore Community Center’s Summer Youth Employment Program

Students will design an evaluation of a program of their choosing, ideally a social service or community initiative, that can provide systematic feedback to decision-makers if funded. The evaluation should include a description of the program, the underlying theory, evaluation questions, design, input/output/outcome measures, an analysis of the merits and limitations, and policy implications. The chosen program for this evaluation is the Mosholu Montefiore Community Center’s (MMCC) Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP). The evaluation aims to assess the program’s effectiveness in increasing youth employment, improving financial literacy, and supporting educational attendance, which are critical for reducing poverty and fostering long-term youth development.

Paper For Above instruction

The evaluation of the Mosholu Montefiore Community Center’s Summer Youth Employment Program (SYEP) offers a comprehensive framework to understand its effectiveness in addressing youth unemployment, educational attainment, and financial literacy among youth from low-income neighborhoods in New York City. This program is designed to provide vulnerable youth aged 14 to 24 with meaningful summer employment, financial literacy education, and professional development opportunities, with the larger goal of reducing poverty and fostering long-term socioeconomic stability. Structurally, the evaluation hinges on a clear articulation of the program’s theory of change, the specific questions that need answers, an appropriate research design, and measures to evaluate success and identify areas for improvement.

The core theory underlying SYEP is that providing targeted employment, coupled with financial literacy and professional development, can promote positive youth development outcomes, including increased school attendance, steady employment, and better money management skills. The program hypothesizes that early exposure to work experiences, especially in a supportive environment, can improve future employment prospects, instill work habits, and reduce risky behaviors among youth. Such a theory emphasizes the importance of combining employment with life skills education and the necessity of engaging community partnerships, including schools and financial institutions, for sustainable impact.

The primary evaluation questions focus on assessing the program’s effectiveness in achieving its short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes. Short-term questions include: Does participation improve participants’ job readiness skills? Do youth gain confidence and motivation to seek employment? Are financial literacy workshops effective in enhancing money management skills? Intermediate questions examine: What percentage of participants secure permanent employment or current internships? Does participation correlate with increased school attendance? Long-term questions project impacts such as: Does the program contribute to increased family income? Does it lead to higher high school graduation rates? Do participants secure long-term employment that persists through their college years?

To answer these questions, a mixed-methods evaluation design is proposed, integrating quantitative and qualitative methodologies. A longitudinal cohort study can track youth participants over time, collecting pre- and post-program data through surveys, interviews, and official records. Quantitative measures include employment status, hours worked, educational attendance, and financial literacy scores. Qualitative data from focus groups and interviews would provide context on participant experiences, perceptions, and challenges faced during the program. A comparison group of similar youth who did not participate, possibly identified through propensity score matching, can strengthen inferences about program impact, addressing potential selection bias. Additionally, process evaluation components will monitor implementation fidelity, participant engagement, and partner collaborations to ensure the program is delivered as intended.

The merits of this design include its comprehensive approach in assessing both outcomes and implementation processes, providing policymakers with nuanced insights into the program’s functioning and impact. Using a comparison group enhances internal validity, allowing for a more rigorous conclusion about causality. Moreover, incorporating qualitative data offers depth and understanding of participant perspectives, essential for tailoring program improvements. Limitations involve the potential challenges in tracking youth over time, attrition, and accurately matching comparison groups, which could affect validity. Furthermore, resource and time constraints might limit the evaluation scope, and external factors such as economic shifts may influence outcomes independently of the program.

The policy implications of this evaluation are significant. Demonstrated positive impacts could justify continued or increased funding, promote scaling of the program, or inform best practices for similar initiatives nationwide. Conversely, identified shortcomings or unmet evaluation questions could guide targeted modifications, such as enhanced professional development or expanded financial literacy modules. The findings could also inform broader policy strategies, integrating youth employment and education programs into larger ant poverty and workforce development frameworks. Ultimately, a robust evaluation supports evidence-based policymaking that aligns youth services with community needs and workforce demands, contributing to sustainable socioeconomic improvement.

References

• NYC Department of Youth & Community Development. (2015). Jobs & Internships. 2014 NYC SYEP Annual Summary. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov
• Mosholu Montefiore Community Center. (2017). Youth Employment. Retrieved from https://www.mmccnyc.org
• Connell, B., & Kubisch, A. (2014). Applying a systems approach to evaluate community programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 35(3), 388-404.
• Fitzgerald, S., & Bronson, R. (2016). Evaluating Youth Employment Programs—Methods and Challenges. Journal of Youth Development, 11(2), 15-29.
• Woolf, S. H., & Aron, L. (2013). The US Health Disadvantage: Challenges and Opportunities. National Academies Press.
• Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage Publications.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Sage Publications.
• Schmisseur, A., et al. (2018). Community-Based Participatory Research in Youth Development: A guide for practitioners. Youth & Society, 50(8), 1038-1054.
• Mattessich, P. W., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B. R. (2001). Collaboration: What makes it work? A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. Wilder Research.