Program Evaluation on Early Head Start
Running head: HOW TO EVALUATE AN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM IN the UNITED STATES 1
HOW TO EVALUATE AN EARLY HEAD START PROGRAM IN the UNITED STATES 6
How to Evaluate an Early Head Start Program in the United States
Taliqua S. Medley
North Carolina Central University
February 5, 2018
Dr. Daniel Pryce
Introduction/Literature Review
Program evaluation is a systematic method that allows policy makers, planners, program managers, or program clientele to evaluate and assess programs about their effectiveness (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2013). Evaluating programs bring out both the strengths and weaknesses, but also identifies a visual of the plans implemented. The purpose of program evaluation is to distinguish social programs from ineffective ones and launch new programs or revise existing programs to achieve better results. For program evaluation to be done properly, policymakers must obtain answers to certain questions. Some of these questions are as followed: what are the nature and scope of the problem? Who is the appropriate target? Is the program cost efficient?
According to Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman (2013), all evaluations must be tailored to specific circumstances so that the information gathered is credible and useful to answer necessary questions. There are three issues that raise concern about evaluations. First, the questions the evaluation is to answer. More specifically, who the primary target is, is the program making an impact as it was designed to do, and is the program cost efficient. Next, the methods used to answer these questions. It is important for all evaluators to be able to obtain credible and timely information about the different aspects of the program. Lastly, the evaluator-stakeholder relationship.
Evaluators may serve as a consultant while the stakeholder is responsible for planning and using the evaluation. It is possible that the evaluator may seek additionally support from stakeholders. Within the relationship both parties should understand what information to receive at what times, the nature of the plan, and how the findings should be spread beyond the sponsor. For an evaluation plan to be effective there are three principles features to consider. The purpose of the evaluation, the structure and circumstances, and finally, the resources available (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2013).
The purpose of evaluation is broken down into four segments. Formative evaluation relates more so to furnishing existing programs (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2013). In other words, make better of an existing program. For accountability purposes, taxpayers want to know that their money is going to be used carefully, and strategically. If program managers use resources that produce benefits it is called summative evaluation. Many evaluations are based on the contribution to knowledge. Because of this they are implemented using feasible methods. Finally, hidden agendas, often the purpose of evaluations has little to do with gathering information about the progress of the program.
All programs are different. Even if they have a common goal, not one of them have the same exact structure. For evaluators, there are three important categories: the stage, administrative and political context, and organization structure of the program (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2013). The stage of program development can alter at various times. Growing up I always heard the saying desperate times case for desperate measures. Relating this to program evaluation, when evaluators see that a specific program no longer has the same effect they begin strategizing and coming up with new ideas.
It is important to understand that evaluators do not establish their own goals (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2013). The evaluator works with sponsors, program management along with other stakeholders to develop a program. Of course, with there being different types of people there will be different opinions as well. The evaluator will take input from all stakeholders and incorporate all concerns. Additionally, if all parties are not in an agreement about the purpose and what steps are needed for an effective program that will cause conflict.
According to Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman (2013), if evaluators do not know the purpose of a program they cannot effectively evaluate the program. The program theory is the “plan of operation, the logic that connects its activities to the outcomes, and the rationale for why it does what it does” (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2013, pg. 44). It is very imperative that evaluators understand the organizational structure of the program as well. The larger the program is, the more complex the structure will be. It is easier for evaluators to evaluate concrete activates, such as meals to the homeless.
For resource purposes, evaluators must be sure that they have the required resources. Evaluation plans must accommodate that there will be limitations on the amount of resources available. Program evaluation requires critical resources such as: funding and the amount of time that is allotted to complete work. Evaluators must be expertise in understanding that there must be a balance between what is most desired rather than what is more feasible.
With every program there are certain individuals with roles. Program managers, policy makers, program staff, sponsors, target participants are all individuals who contribute to the implementing a program. According to Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman (2013), there are three types of evaluation; independent evaluation which assumes the evaluator takes primary responsibility, participatory evaluation which assumes the program requires a team of people, and lastly, empowerment evaluation which is a participatory evaluation in which the evaluators roles include facilitation directors to stakeholders. It is important for all evaluators to ensure that the relationship that they have with other stakeholders is a good one. Especially if they are individuals with the same interest, or who just want to help.
A program evaluation is gathering information to answer questions about how a program is doing or how it can be improved. An important tactic in doing so, is deciding what questions best answer those questions. There are five commonly recognized issues surrounding that evaluation questions fall into: needs assessment, assessment of program theory, assessment of program process, impact assessment, and efficiency assessment.
Needs of assessment is the implication for intervention of a program. Assessment of the program focuses on how the program is designed. Assessment of program process is focuses on the effectiveness of the program. The impact assessment is an overview of how the program works. Lastly, efficiency assessment compares the cost of the program to how much effectiveness there is.
For this paper, we will assume that the Head Start program being evaluated is designed to provide services to low-income women with infant children and toddlers up to three years of age. It is vital to understand that Early Head Start is a comprehensive program that focuses on enhancing children’s development while providing educational opportunities. Despite programs having many purposes, most aim to reduce gaps in school readiness between low-income and more advanced children (Raikes, Brooks-Gunn, & Love, 2013). To make things a little clearer, it is most common for low-income children to enter school at a standard deviation lower than most children in domains such as vocabulary and cognition (Raikes, Brooks-Gunn, & Love, 2013).
The development of Early Head Start “suggests that interventions are likely to change the slope of developmental trajectories and that differential experiences of children during various periods may influence different aspects of child well-being” (Raikes, Brooks-Gunn, & Love, 2013, pg. 4). According to Bachman & Schutt (2015), individuals who have interest in the program are called stakeholders. These individuals provide information about the process, outputs, and any outcomes available. Inputs are referred to as resource managers and staff, the program process entails different activities and services that the program provides, outputs are what is being delivered, and the outcome is the impact the program.
Program Stakeholders
The Head Start program stakeholders are parents, teachers, community members, program managers, staff caregivers and other individuals interested in the effectiveness of the program. The individuals will provide information about how the program is progressing and the necessary steps that need to be taken to improve the program. To engage these stakeholders, the parents are going to be responsible for the staff is going to be responsible for conducting an orientation to give an overview of what is expected from all stakeholders and the goals of the program, reflective meetings about the children and their process, and regularly staff meetings. Parents are responsible for providing updated information about the child’s progress.
Program Inputs
Program director, lead teacher, breakfast/snack
Program Outputs
According to Elicker, Wen, Kwon, & Sprague (2013), similar to this very program, the importance is to build positive relationships participating caregivers and families to support positive change.
Timley, kids may age out.
References
Dickstein, S., Seifer, R., Eguia, M., Kuersten-hogan, R., & Magee, K. D. (2002). Early head start MAP: Manualized assessment of progress. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23(1/2), 231-249.
Elicker, J., Wen, X., Kwon, K., & Sprague, J. B. (2013). Early head start relationships: association with program outcomes. Early Education & Development, 24(4), 491-516.
Gettinger, M., & Stoiber, K. (2007). Applying a response-to-intervention model for early literacy development in low-income children. Topis In Early Childhood Special Education, 27(4), 198-213.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7 th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.