Program Evaluation
Can you please provide information on Program Evaluation process?
3 years ago 35
RiverbendInfo.docx
AssignmentInstructions8-6-23.docx
RiverbendInfo.docx
SECOND CHANCE RBC
Organizational Summary
Mission: Second Chance RBC purpose is to provide programming to offer alternatives to the criminal justice system in Riverbend City.
Overview: As a nonprofit organization, SC RBC provides services to adults and juveniles throughout the city. While the programming for adults focuses on reducing recidivism, the programming for juveniles provides prevention and diversion services. The adult programs are integrated throughout Riverbend City. The student programs are available in all high schools within the district.
Who we serve:
Adults 37% female, 63% male 57% Hispanic/Latino, 26% White/Caucasian, 16% African-American, 1% other
Second Chance Program 32% female, 68% male 12% middle school, 88% high school 62% Hispanic/Latino, 22% White/Caucasian, 13% African-American, 3% other 77% of participants also receive Free School Breakfast and/or lunch
First Chance Program 41% female, 59% male 27% middle school, 73% high school 68% Hispanic/Latino, 19% White/Caucasian, 11% African-American, 2% other 81% of participants also receive Free School Breakfast and/or lunch
History : SC RBC was established in 2000, when it brought 10 of the city’s halfway houses into one nonprofit. This initial focus was on adults and supporting adults in their reentry into society.
In 2005, the programming was expanded with the collaborative partnership with the RBC School District, the Police Department and the RBC Juvenile Justice system. The RBC School District had instituted zero-tolerance policies for weapons, drugs and other school violations. As a result, they had experienced an increase in expulsions and drop-outs while the juvenile justice system saw an increase in juvenile offenders. To address this school-to-prison pipeline, Second Chance RBC began offering alternative programming for students with non-violent school offenses. After several years of this public-private partnership, the RBC School District began to see a decrease with students entering the juvenile justice system. Nevertheless, RBC School District was interested furthering this success to translate into decreases in expulsions and drop-outs. In 2008, Second Chance RBC launched its First Chance programming, providing character development, counseling and anger management. While the First and Second Chance programs are in all the high schools, there are culturally competent First Chance programs offered at Orrin Collins High School for the school’s Latino and African-American students, and at Swann High with a focus on the school’s Somali students.
Nonprofit Transparency:
Second Chance is a nonprofit organization with a board that provides oversight. The board meets at least five times per year. The board membership includes:
1 Rebecca Reeves, Chair
2 Keshana Berger , Treasurer
3 Michael Santos
4 Erika Jensen
5 Neha Lang
6 Richard Allen
Funding Sources:
image1.png
image2.png
AssignmentInstructions8-6-23.docx
For this assignment, write a 6–8 page paper on program evaluation based upon the Riverbend City scenario presented in this unit's study. Distinguish the three different types of program evaluation and identify each of their functions, goals, and processes. Use the Riverbend City scenario to highlight specifically how these different program evaluations are being used and critique how multiple stakeholder perspectives are integrated to meet specific population needs, and how ethics are maintained in the process.
Be sure to address the following:
· Identify three types of program evaluation that were presented in the Riverbend City scenario.
· Describe the three types of program evaluation and their application in the scenario.
· Assess the program, utilizing the three types of program evaluations from the Riverbend City scenario.
· Examine ethical issues that arise in program evaluation, using at least two ethical standards from the National Organization of Human Services.
· Critique each program evaluation's use of multiple stakeholders' perspectives in determining their effectiveness for meeting the needs of special populations.
Your work should integrate the Riverbend City media presentation and references to your required readings. You are encouraged to support this paper with additional reputable sources.
|
|
||
|
Week 5 Assignment - Program Evaluation |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
Assess program quality using standards-based evaluation. view longer description |
36 to >30.6 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques the implementation of standards-based evaluation in assessing program quality, highlighting its effectiveness in meeting the needs of specific stakeholders and/or diverse populations. 30.6 to >25.2 pts PROFICIENT Assesses program quality using standards-based evaluation. 25.2 to >0 pts BASIC Describes standards-based evaluation conceptually or in application in a specified scenario, but does not assess it in relation to program quality. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not address program quality using standards-based evaluation. |
/ 36 pts |
|
Assess program efficiency and effectiveness using process evaluation. view longer description |
36 to >30.6 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques the implementation of process evaluation in assessing program efficiency and its effectiveness in meeting the needs of specific stakeholders and/or populations. 30.6 to >25.2 pts PROFICIENT Assesses program efficiency and effectiveness using process evaluation. 25.2 to >0 pts BASIC Describes process evaluation conceptually or in application in a specified scenario, but does not assess it in relation to program efficiency and effectiveness. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not address program efficiency and effectiveness using process evaluation. |
/ 36 pts |
|
Assess program effectiveness using outcome evaluation. view longer description |
36 to >30.6 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques the implementation of outcome evaluation in assessing program effectiveness in meeting the needs of specific stakeholders and/or diverse populations. 30.6 to >25.2 pts PROFICIENT Assesses program effectiveness using outcome evaluation. 25.2 to >0 pts BASIC Describes outcome evaluation conceptually or in application in a specified scenario, but does not assess it in relation to program effectiveness. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not describe program effectiveness using outcome evaluation. |
/ 36 pts |
|
Examine what ethical issues arise in conducting program evaluation. view longer description |
28 to >23.8 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques the application of several ethical standards when conducting program evaluation in a specified scenario. 23.8 to >19.6 pts PROFICIENT Examines what ethical issues arise in conducting program evaluation. 19.6 to >0 pts BASIC Highlights ethical issues, but does not specifically link them to the program evaluation presented in a specified scenario. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not identify what ethical issues arise in conducting program evaluation. |
/ 28 pts |
|
Critique how each type of program evaluation utilizes multiple stakeholder perspectives. view longer description |
28 to >23.8 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques how each type of program evaluation addresses diversity through multiple stakeholder perspectives, accessibility, and culturally sensitive approaches. 23.8 to >19.6 pts PROFICIENT Critiques how each type of program evaluation utilizes multiple stakeholder perspectives. 19.6 to >0 pts BASIC Discusses multiple stakeholder perspectives, relating some aspects regarding accessibility or culturally sensitive approaches used in program evaluation, but does not critique them. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not discuss how each type of program evaluation utilizes multiple stakeholder perspectives. |
/ 28 pts |
|
Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession. view longer description |
36 to >30.6 pts DISTINGUISHED Communicates in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, is consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession, and is supported with reputable sources. 30.6 to >25.2 pts PROFICIENT Communicates in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession. 25.2 to >0 pts BASIC Communicates with persistent writing errors that impede the message or includes language the is not respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession. |
|
RiverbendInfo.docx
SECOND CHANCE RBC
Organizational Summary
Mission: Second Chance RBC purpose is to provide programming to offer alternatives to the criminal justice system in Riverbend City.
Overview: As a nonprofit organization, SC RBC provides services to adults and juveniles throughout the city. While the programming for adults focuses on reducing recidivism, the programming for juveniles provides prevention and diversion services. The adult programs are integrated throughout Riverbend City. The student programs are available in all high schools within the district.
Who we serve:
Adults 37% female, 63% male 57% Hispanic/Latino, 26% White/Caucasian, 16% African-American, 1% other
Second Chance Program 32% female, 68% male 12% middle school, 88% high school 62% Hispanic/Latino, 22% White/Caucasian, 13% African-American, 3% other 77% of participants also receive Free School Breakfast and/or lunch
First Chance Program 41% female, 59% male 27% middle school, 73% high school 68% Hispanic/Latino, 19% White/Caucasian, 11% African-American, 2% other 81% of participants also receive Free School Breakfast and/or lunch
History : SC RBC was established in 2000, when it brought 10 of the city’s halfway houses into one nonprofit. This initial focus was on adults and supporting adults in their reentry into society.
In 2005, the programming was expanded with the collaborative partnership with the RBC School District, the Police Department and the RBC Juvenile Justice system. The RBC School District had instituted zero-tolerance policies for weapons, drugs and other school violations. As a result, they had experienced an increase in expulsions and drop-outs while the juvenile justice system saw an increase in juvenile offenders. To address this school-to-prison pipeline, Second Chance RBC began offering alternative programming for students with non-violent school offenses. After several years of this public-private partnership, the RBC School District began to see a decrease with students entering the juvenile justice system. Nevertheless, RBC School District was interested furthering this success to translate into decreases in expulsions and drop-outs. In 2008, Second Chance RBC launched its First Chance programming, providing character development, counseling and anger management. While the First and Second Chance programs are in all the high schools, there are culturally competent First Chance programs offered at Orrin Collins High School for the school’s Latino and African-American students, and at Swann High with a focus on the school’s Somali students.
Nonprofit Transparency:
Second Chance is a nonprofit organization with a board that provides oversight. The board meets at least five times per year. The board membership includes:
1 Rebecca Reeves, Chair
2 Keshana Berger , Treasurer
3 Michael Santos
4 Erika Jensen
5 Neha Lang
6 Richard Allen
Funding Sources:
image1.png
image2.png
AssignmentInstructions8-6-23.docx
For this assignment, write a 6–8 page paper on program evaluation based upon the Riverbend City scenario presented in this unit's study. Distinguish the three different types of program evaluation and identify each of their functions, goals, and processes. Use the Riverbend City scenario to highlight specifically how these different program evaluations are being used and critique how multiple stakeholder perspectives are integrated to meet specific population needs, and how ethics are maintained in the process.
Be sure to address the following:
· Identify three types of program evaluation that were presented in the Riverbend City scenario.
· Describe the three types of program evaluation and their application in the scenario.
· Assess the program, utilizing the three types of program evaluations from the Riverbend City scenario.
· Examine ethical issues that arise in program evaluation, using at least two ethical standards from the National Organization of Human Services.
· Critique each program evaluation's use of multiple stakeholders' perspectives in determining their effectiveness for meeting the needs of special populations.
Your work should integrate the Riverbend City media presentation and references to your required readings. You are encouraged to support this paper with additional reputable sources.
|
|
||
|
Week 5 Assignment - Program Evaluation |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
Assess program quality using standards-based evaluation. view longer description |
36 to >30.6 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques the implementation of standards-based evaluation in assessing program quality, highlighting its effectiveness in meeting the needs of specific stakeholders and/or diverse populations. 30.6 to >25.2 pts PROFICIENT Assesses program quality using standards-based evaluation. 25.2 to >0 pts BASIC Describes standards-based evaluation conceptually or in application in a specified scenario, but does not assess it in relation to program quality. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not address program quality using standards-based evaluation. |
/ 36 pts |
|
Assess program efficiency and effectiveness using process evaluation. view longer description |
36 to >30.6 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques the implementation of process evaluation in assessing program efficiency and its effectiveness in meeting the needs of specific stakeholders and/or populations. 30.6 to >25.2 pts PROFICIENT Assesses program efficiency and effectiveness using process evaluation. 25.2 to >0 pts BASIC Describes process evaluation conceptually or in application in a specified scenario, but does not assess it in relation to program efficiency and effectiveness. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not address program efficiency and effectiveness using process evaluation. |
/ 36 pts |
|
Assess program effectiveness using outcome evaluation. view longer description |
36 to >30.6 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques the implementation of outcome evaluation in assessing program effectiveness in meeting the needs of specific stakeholders and/or diverse populations. 30.6 to >25.2 pts PROFICIENT Assesses program effectiveness using outcome evaluation. 25.2 to >0 pts BASIC Describes outcome evaluation conceptually or in application in a specified scenario, but does not assess it in relation to program effectiveness. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not describe program effectiveness using outcome evaluation. |
/ 36 pts |
|
Examine what ethical issues arise in conducting program evaluation. view longer description |
28 to >23.8 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques the application of several ethical standards when conducting program evaluation in a specified scenario. 23.8 to >19.6 pts PROFICIENT Examines what ethical issues arise in conducting program evaluation. 19.6 to >0 pts BASIC Highlights ethical issues, but does not specifically link them to the program evaluation presented in a specified scenario. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not identify what ethical issues arise in conducting program evaluation. |
/ 28 pts |
|
Critique how each type of program evaluation utilizes multiple stakeholder perspectives. view longer description |
28 to >23.8 pts DISTINGUISHED Critiques how each type of program evaluation addresses diversity through multiple stakeholder perspectives, accessibility, and culturally sensitive approaches. 23.8 to >19.6 pts PROFICIENT Critiques how each type of program evaluation utilizes multiple stakeholder perspectives. 19.6 to >0 pts BASIC Discusses multiple stakeholder perspectives, relating some aspects regarding accessibility or culturally sensitive approaches used in program evaluation, but does not critique them. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not discuss how each type of program evaluation utilizes multiple stakeholder perspectives. |
/ 28 pts |
|
Communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession. view longer description |
36 to >30.6 pts DISTINGUISHED Communicates in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, is consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession, and is supported with reputable sources. 30.6 to >25.2 pts PROFICIENT Communicates in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession. 25.2 to >0 pts BASIC Communicates with persistent writing errors that impede the message or includes language the is not respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession. 0 pts NON_PERFORMANCE Does not communicate in a manner that is scholarly, professional, and respectful of the diversity, dignity, and integrity of others, consistent with expectations for members of the human services profession. |
|
- The process of creating and maintaining a website
- BEP_Ques- 19 Jan
- complete work sheet
- Proffessor 2013, would you please write Assignment 1: Personal Reflection Journal Entry for me?
- Online class its CIS 4 i have to do the project today cus the due date is for today and...
- Project
- Fin 571 assignent seven math questions
- Hi, please I need this done within 15 hours!
- Tribute Company has the following estimated costs for next year: The company estimates that 16,000 direct labor and 106,000 machine hours...
- Fixed costs depend on how much output is produced