SOCW 6311 Week 9 Discussion Responses

profileballs269
6311Week9ResponseRequirements.docx

Respond to at least two colleagues’ improvements to the process evaluation report in the Social Work Research Qualitative Groups case study by doing the following:

· Explain how your colleagues’ reports improved upon that of the case study.

· Suggest further improvements.

Must contain references and citations.

Colleague #1 – Politely

Post a description of the process evaluation that you chose and explain why you selected this example. Describe the stage of program implementation in which the evaluation occurred, the informants, the questions asked, and the results. Based upon your comparison of the case study and the program evaluation report that you chose, improve upon the information presented in the case study by identifying gaps in information. Fill in these gaps as if you were the facilitator of the focus group. Clearly identify the purpose of the process evaluation and the questions asked.

 

Process evaluation refers to the variable measurement and examining, including decision-making practices, communication flow, client record-keeping, staff workload, worker-client activities, staff training, and program support (Steckler & Linnan, 2018). Process evaluation is an essential part of social work as it enhances accountability and effectiveness in the ways clients are regarded by practitioners (Moore et al., 2016). The process evaluation that was chosen was Adult with Developmental disabilities. Under this evaluation, a community group needed services for adults with developmental disabilities and little or no contact outside their immediate families. The target group was individuals who had expended all their free time within their family homes. The rationale for creating the program was that the program would be available to various individuals isolated in the city (Dudley, 2020). The program of adults with developmental disabilities would satisfy the gap of their unique needs.

 

Meanwhile, there would be a cohort of professional staff members ready and accessible with training to help and provide transport for clients to and from the program (Dudley, 2020). However, the program's sponsor, which constituted a group of parents with disabled children, made a slight attempt to direct their resources into marketing, recruiting, and other forms meant for the outreach. As a result, the newly initiated program was quickly bombarded by the members who already had several social contacts within the community and higher functioning (Dudley, 2020). The potential target group figured out about the upcoming program. They accepted it immediately and made it their own. Soon after, the staff members took the least opposed path and established their efforts to create social opportunities. The original target group for the program was then disregarded because it lacked an advocate to represent (Dudley, 2020). Based on the above case, the central gap identified is a commitment by the program's sponsors, identifying the appropriate target group, and poor communication. The challenges made the original target group to be disregarded for lack of representation. This gap could be filled by identifying a committed sponsor who will identify the right target group and execute the evaluation process professionally. It will provide the identified target group with proper representation, thus benefiting from the program's outcome. The purpose of the process evaluation is to provide systematic methods of studying a program, process, or initiative seeking to understand how well it accomplishes its objectives and goals (O'Hearn, 2017). However, some of the questions asked would include: What were the specific interventions? Did the interventions work or not? What were the kind of problems encountered? (Mullany & Peat, 2018)

References

Dudley, J. R. (2020). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do (3rd ed.) Oxford University Press.

Moore, G. F., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Hardeman, W., ... & Baird, J. (2016). Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. bmj350.

Mullany, J. M., & Peat, B. (2018). Process evaluation of a county drug court: An analysis of descriptors, compliance, and outcome—Answering some questions while raising others. Criminal Justice Policy Review19(4), 491-508.

O'Hearn, G. T. (2017). What is the Purpose of Evaluation?

Steckler, A., & Linnan, L. (2018). Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. John Wiley & Sons.

 

Colleague #2 – King Kong

RE: Discussion - Week 9

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

My process evaluation of choice was of the program to address parental substance abuse in the child welfare system.  By placing substance abuse counselors in a local child welfare office, the program was designed to detect early identification, timely referral to treatment and improved treatment and engagement of substance-abusing parents.  Six of the seven original sites endorsed the program as they found that the substance abuse counselors provided additional resources for the families and children and facilitated in court proceedings.  The findings suggest that clearly defined procedures and sufficient staffing of qualified substance abuse counselors could lead to better programs (Lee, Esaki & Greene, 2009).  

Challenges included the different goals, legal mandates and practices between the child welfare and substance abuse fields.  Unrealistic demands were placed on the substance abusing parents due to shortened timelines.  To address the challenges associated with substance abuse in child welfare, strategies for integrating substance abuse treatment and child welfare services have gained popularity.  Some research suggests collaboration between substance abuse treatment and other social service systems improves treatment outcomes. 

The goals were to examine the implementation processes and to assess whether program sites varied in implementation success.  The authors were interested in examining the following questions: 1) Were the target populations served? 2) Did collocation increase collaboration and understanding between the child welfare and substance abuse agencies? 3) Was the program implemented as intended? And 4) What were the barriers to successful implementation (Lee, Easki & Greene, 2009)?

The process evaluations were similar in that both the studies implemented focus groups and focused on the cross-system collaboration.  The week’s case study did not mention the focus of the questions that were asked to the focus group, it focused more on the engagement of the group (Plummer, Makris & Brocksen, 2014b).  If I was facilitating, I would make clear the questions being asked to receive a clear and exact answer to the issues of the group.  I would ensure the focus would remain on the intended and not wander off into another discussion while not answering the original questions.

 

Lee, E., Esaki, N., & Greene, R. (2009). Collocation: Integrating child welfare and substance abuse services. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 9(1), 55-70.

 

Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen, S. (Eds.). (2014b). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader].

Bottom of Form