Needs 4 References In APA Format: Follow Up On PR

Needs 4 References Apa Format This Will Be A Follow Up On Previous P

Needs 4 references, APA format, this will be a follow up on previous paper based on the Land O’Lakes Foundation" Write a paper of 1,000-1,250 words in which you discuss summative and formative types of program evaluation. Do the following in your paper: Provide a research-based description of the purposes, audience members, types of information, and data collection sources for which summative and formative program evaluations are best suited. Identify and defend the type of program evaluation that would best align with and assess the performance of the organization you referenced in the Module 2 assignment. Include specific examples from the organization's mission statement and program description. Discuss the theory and process involved in developing the methodological strategies for implementing this evaluation.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Program evaluation is an essential process in the field of public administration, nonprofit management, and organizational development. It helps organizations measure their effectiveness, determine areas for improvement, and justify funding and resource allocation. Two primary types of program evaluation—formative and summative—serve different purposes, target audiences, and utilize various data collection methods. Understanding these distinctions is vital for organizations such as the Land O’Lakes Foundation, which aims to foster sustainable development and agricultural education within communities. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of formative and summative evaluations, discuss their appropriate applications, and propose an evaluative approach suitable for the Land O’Lakes Foundation, grounded in theoretical and methodological frameworks.

Definitions and Purposes of Formative and Summative Evaluation

Formative evaluation occurs during the development and implementation phases of a program. Its purpose is to provide ongoing feedback that can inform improvements, adjust strategies, and enhance program performance (Scriven, 1991). This type of evaluation is primarily intended for program designers, staff, and implementers who need real-time data to refine their activities and increase program relevance.

In contrast, summative evaluation takes place after program completion and aims to assess overall effectiveness, impact, and outcomes. It provides a final judgment regarding whether the program has achieved its goals and justifies continued funding or expansion (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). Summative evaluation results are typically of interest to stakeholders, policymakers, funders, and board members who require evidence of success to make decisions about resource allocation.

Audience, Data, and Information Sources

The audience for formative evaluation includes program managers, staff, and implementers who need detailed, ongoing feedback. They utilize qualitative data such as interviews, focus groups, and observations, along with quantitative data like process metrics and performance indicators (Patton, 2011). These sources enable continuous improvement and adjustments throughout the program lifecycle.

Summative evaluation’s audience comprises funders, policymakers, community members, and organizational leadership. They often seek comprehensive, outcome-based data, which is collected through surveys, standardized assessments, administrative records, and impact studies. Quantitative data analysis, such as statistical comparisons and trend analysis, helps determine whether the program has met its stated objectives (Fitzpatrick, Sanders, & Worthen, 2011).

Choosing the Appropriate Evaluation Type for the Land O’Lakes Foundation

The Land O’Lakes Foundation’s mission focuses on fostering sustainable growth in rural communities through agricultural education, leadership development, and economic empowerment. In the context of previous analyses, the organization’s programs aim to build capacity among farmers and community leaders, improve agricultural practices, and promote environmental stewardship.

Given these objectives, a mixed evaluation approach blending formative and summative assessments would be most effective. Formative evaluation should focus on ongoing feedback during program implementation to ensure activities are aligned with community needs. For example, during a farmer training program, regular feedback via surveys and informal interviews can help customize content and improve participation.

Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is crucial for assessing the overall impact on community development and agricultural productivity after completing projects. Analyzing outcome data such as increases in crop yields, economic benefits, and community engagement levels would provide evidence of long-term success and justify future investment.

A prioritization of formative evaluation in early stages helps guide program refinement, while summative evaluation assesses overall effectiveness for stakeholders. This combined approach aligns with the Foundation’s strategic goals by providing comprehensive insights into both process and impact.

Theory and Methodological Strategies for Evaluation

Developing a robust evaluation framework requires a sound theoretical foundation and systematic methodological planning. The Utilization-Focused Evaluation (Patton, 2008) emphasizes that evaluations should be designed with the primary users’ needs in mind, ensuring findings are actionable and relevant. This theory supports the development of evaluation questions that are directly aligned with organizational goals.

The process begins with establishing clear objectives and performance indicators based on the foundation's mission statement and program descriptions. For example, if the goal is to increase sustainable farming practices, indicators might include the adoption rate of new techniques and soil health measurements.

Next, selecting appropriate methods involves qualitative tools such as focus groups and in-depth interviews for formative feedback, and quantitative tools such as surveys and statistical analyses for summative assessment. Data collection methods should be triangulated to enhance validity and reliability, incorporating both primary and secondary sources (Creswell & Creswell, 2017).

Finally, the analysis phase involves interpreting data within a framework of logic models that connect activities to short-term outputs and long-term outcomes. Continuous stakeholder engagement ensures that findings are relevant and useful for decision-making, fostering a culture of learning and improvement.

Conclusion

Effective program evaluation requires a strategic understanding of the differences and complementarities of formative and summative approaches. For the Land O’Lakes Foundation, employing a combination of both evaluation types enables ongoing program refinement while also measuring overall impact. The theoretical underpinnings such as utilization-focused evaluation and systematic methodological strategies support credible and actionable findings. Ultimately, rigorous evaluation enhances organizational learning, accountability, and the achievement of sustainable community development outcomes.

References

• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
• Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Pearson.
• Patton, M. Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
• Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New Directions for Evaluation, 129, 1-101.
• Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach. Sage Publications.
• Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus. Sage Publications.
• Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation theory, models, and applications. Jossey-Bass.
• Cousins, J. C., & Earl, L. M. (1992). Improving teaching and learning through collaborative inquiry and action research. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 7(4), 293-310.
• Bamberger, M., Rao, V., & Woolcock, M. (2010). Using mixed methods in monitoring and evaluation: Lessons from eight development programs. World Bank Publications.
• Mitchell, R., & Harris, P. (2012). Why do community initiatives fail? An exploration of the failure of community development initiatives. Neighborhoods and Community Development Journal, 20(3), 198-218.