help 8764

mordyggggg

cf_sample_presentation01.pptx

Home >Psychology homework help >help 8764

Results of evaluation: Syracuse university’s food pantry program

Capella Learner

Capella University PSY8763 – Program evaluation Instructor

Introduction

Background of the program

Royse et al. (2016) describe program evaluation as determining if services are helpful, harmful, ineffective, etc. (pg. 1). Program evaluation is a subset of research and is considered a practical endeavor; by this, Royse et al. remind us that program evaluation does not build theory or add to the knowledge of the topic (2016, pg. 2). However, evaluations are key in that they provide examples of positive results and answer the question How do we know this is working? What we discovered during the evaluation is just how well the food pantry is working and why it should continue.

The next slides will be describing the Office of Engagement Programs as well as the specific program we evaluated, the SU Food Pantry.

Brief history: SU Food pantry and office of engagement programs

The campus food pantry is a program within the Office of Engagement Programs at Syracuse University.

The Office of Engagement Programs operates under the umbrella of Hendricks Chapel at Syracuse University. The Office began as Students Offering Service at Hendricks Chapel and was "credited for countless student volunteer hours both on campus and in the community. The office created programs and activities that enhanced the awareness of the values of diversity" (Office of Engagement Programs, n.d.). It transferred as the Office of Engagement Programs in 2005 with a larger staff and support team.

Today, the programs within the Office of Engagement Programs include a food pantry for students, a knitting and crocheting project creating hats for students, and matching up second graders with college students. The Office continues serving the Syracuse University student population. It has adequate staffing of one director, one graduate assistant, and five program coordinators. This coincides with the program hallmarks of "Staffing" (Royse et al., 2016, pg. 7).

1990/1991

Students Offering Service created

2005

SOS transformed into Office of Engagement Programs

2020

SU Food Pantry is just one of many programs for students

What is a food pantry?

Food Pantry versus Food Bank

Food Insecurity

Recent estimates

COVID-19

Photo of the SU Food Pantry, courtesy of Director Byrd

A food pantry provides food to those who do not have enough to eat. Food banks distribute food to food pantries. Pantries can be temporary pop-up locations or permanent, such as the SU food pantry.

Food insecurity is defined as the lack of access to an adequate amount of healthy and nutritious food and has been linked to anxiety and depression (Hatem et al., 2020, para. 1). Having accessible and healthy foods is an aspect of health-related social needs, or HRSNs. These needs are specific environmental, economic, family support, and physical needs that correspond to social determinants of health and include housing, employment, education, transportation, and caregiving as well as food (Kuhn et al., 2020, para. 3).

Housing and food programs have shown clinical improvements (Kuhn et al., 2020, para. 7). A recent study described by Kuhn et al. (2020) found that on-site food pantries are independently associated with increased mental health care utilization when controlling for other factors. This connects back to the earlier studies that show an increased level of anxiety and depression due to food insecurity. On-site food pantries, like those at Syracuse University and other colleges, show that there is "potential to enhance engagement in needed mental health services and improve well-being" (Kuhn et al., 2020, para. 8).

When it comes to food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens, the outcomes are generally measured against how many people are served. Food banks serve over 46 million Americans (Roman, 2017). However, success should also be defined by the promotion of nutritious food and not just the pounds of food distributed (Roman, 2017).

About 44 percent of students at two-year colleges and 38 percent of students at four-year colleges said they were food-insecure as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a study from Georgetown University (Hicks, 2020).

“Food security for students is something that gets very overlooked. Especially in the time of COVID-19, students just don’t have a steady food system. They are a population who doesn’t get a lot of help when it comes to the emergency food distributions.”

–Jessi Lyons, Coordinator, Brady Farms (stakeholder of SU food pantry)

Hicks, M. (2020). Food insecurity, demand on SU pantries rise due to pandemic’s financial tolls. The Daily Orange. http://dailyorange.com/2020/09/food-insecurity-demand-su-pantries-rises-due-pandemics-financial-tolls/

Program goals & objectives

MAIN GOAL: All students are fed and provided for.

Students served at two colleges

Syracuse University

State University of NY, College of Environmental Science and Forestry

OUTPUTS:

Hunger averted

Recipient has boost to disposable income

A program is defined as a collection of activities designed to reach certain objectives (Royse et al., 2016). These activities are not random and are designed to solve a problem (Royse et al., 2016, pg. 7).

The Syracuse University Food Pantry is, by definition, a program that puts together packages of food and personal care items and directly distributed (ImpactMatters, n.d.). SU provides prepackaged bags to students with valid ID at two campus locations ("Food Pantry,“ n.d.). The general outcome expected is that the food pantry (or food bank or soup kitchen) will provide a meal to someone in need. The most common metric for measuring success for a food pantry is the number of meals or bags provided (ImpactMatters, n.d.). The meals provided offer two separate outputs: hunger is averted and there is a boost to the recipient's disposable income (ImpactMatters, n.d.).

Program methods & strategies: Logic model

Program procedures can be calculated using a logic model.

A logic model outlines the processes and components describing how the program should work, in theory, to achieve the desired outcomes (Royse et al., 2016, pg. 122). The logic model template seen here identifies the different aspects for the Syracuse University food pantry program (Royse et al., 2016).

Overview: evaluation methods & recommendations

Evaluation Focus: If and how the students are being assisted

Qualitative feedback from stakeholders

Cost/Benefits Analysis

How to measure success?

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

A qualitative study including the direct participants (students and recipients) would be a good way to evaluate how successful the program is fulfilling its focus and mission. The feedback from the students would additionally enable the program to determine what items are necessary and what are considered unnecessary, which can factor in with the cost-benefit analysis and overhead costs. This feedback from recipients would overwhelmingly show the need and necessity for such a food pantry in the college community. The quantitative analysis of the program will provide data to individuals such as policy makers, the University financial department, payroll, and other stakeholders invested in the bottom line of cost.

stakeholders

Important players in the su food pantry

The individuals within the program are responsible for organizing pantry volunteers, organizing the food pantry itself, contacting donors and supporters for their contributions, communicating with stakeholders, communicating with direct participants, creating the bags for participants, and organizing ongoing financial and item fundraising programs.

Who is important?

Direct Participants

Office of Engagement Programs

SU & SUNY ESF students

Pantry volunteers

Administration

Hendricks Chapel (home base)

SU Chancellor/Administration Offices

SU Employees

Government Agencies

Onondaga County Government

Syracuse City Government

Sponsors

Student Organizations

Residence Hall, Office, & Department drives

Local farmers that provide produce

Community Gardens

Programs are populated by stakeholders as the program serves people, is carried out by people, and has its outcomes examined by people (Capella, “Unit 2”, n.d.). Focusing specifically on food pantry and food banks, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture identify the stakeholders as communities, organizations, businesses, and state, tribal, and local governments (n.d.). Production stakeholders include farmers, ranchers, greenhouses, community gardens, and retailers such as grocers and restaurants (EPA, n.d.). Another example is manufacturers, which include food processors and manufacturing companies (EPA, n.d.). In the publication "Identifying Partners and Convening Stakeholders" (2012), the authors identified five categories of food system stakeholders: nonprofit organizations, industry and trade organizations, foundations and donor-directed funds, government agencies, and educational institutions (pg. 12).

The SU food pantry stakeholders can be broken down into direct participants, administrators, government, sponsors, and other resources. The direct participants would be Office of Engagement Programs, SU students, SUNY ESF students, and the pantry volunteers. Administrators are Hendricks Chapel (where the pantry is located) and the SU chancellor's office. Government agencies or those with invested interest would be the Onondaga County government, SU employees, and the local city government. Sponsors are made up of the student organizations and residence hall floors that hold item drives, offices and departments that hold donation drop-offs, local farmers, and community gardens. Other resources include the Food Pantry Support Fund, Syracuse Responds Fund, Food Bank CNY, and Food Pantry of Syracuse (SU Resource Guide, 2016).

I believe that each stakeholder's program outcome would be to keep the students of SU and SUNY ESF fed and healthy. The food pantry also collects personal items and toiletries, which add to a student's comfort. Valid concerns of the stakeholders would be if there are enough donated goods and labor to drive down operating costs and how to properly and adequately fulfill the demand for help.

Since it is a food pantry that is open to all SU students as well as neighboring SUNY ESF, I do not foresee any stakeholder interest conflicting. The only possible area I would anticipate would be related to operating costs and maintenance costs.

Who is important?

Various Funding

Food Pantry Support Fund

Syracuse Responds Fund

Food Bank CNY

Food Pantry of Syracuse

Programs are populated by stakeholders as the program serves people, is carried out by people, and has its outcomes examined by people (Capella, “Unit 2”, n.d.). Focusing specifically on food pantry and food banks, the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture identifies the stakeholders as communities, organizations, businesses, and state, tribal, and local governments (n.d.). Production stakeholders include farmers, ranchers, greenhouses, community gardens, and retailers such as grocers and restaurants (EPA, n.d.). Another example is manufacturers which includes food processors and manufacturing companies (EPA, n.d.). In the publication "Identifying Partners and Convening Stakeholders" (2012), the authors identified five categories of food system stakeholders: non-profit organizations, industry and trade organizations, foundations and donor-directed funds, government agencies, and educational institutions (pg. 12).

The SU food pantry stakeholders can be broken down into direct participants, administrators, government, sponsors, and other resources. The direct participants would be: Office of Engagement Programs; SU students; SUNY ESF students; and the pantry volunteers. Administrators are Hendricks Chapel (where the pantry is located) and the SU chancellor's office. Government agencies or those with invested interest would be the Onondaga County government, SU employees, and the local city government. Sponsors are made up of the student organizations and residence hall floors that hold item drives, offices and departments that hold donation drop offs, local farmers, and community gardens. Other resources include the Food Pantry Support Fund, Syracuse Responds Fund, Food Bank CNY, and Food Pantry of Syracuse (SU Resource Guide, 2016).

I believe that each stakeholder's program outcome would be to keep the students of SU and SUNY ESF fed and healthy. The food pantry also collects personal items and toiletries, which adds to a student's comfort. Valid concerns of the stakeholders would be if there is enough donated manpower and donated goods to drive down operating costs and how to properly and adequately fulfill the demand for help.

Flow of resources

The flow of resources seen on this slide illustrates the foundation of the program and how it grows. The need for a program was already apparent, which was the hungry students on campus. This need was recognized by program initiators who then recruited funders and administrators to make the program happen. Employees and volunteers were brought on, which ultimately brings the resources to the program recipients (Huitt, 2020).

Need for a service, good, or program

Program Initiators, funders, & administrators

Employees & Volunteers

Program Recipients

Evaluation methods

Data, collection, & methodology

Data Collection

Two-Pronged Approach

Gathering information from the students about the prepared bags

Collecting financial data for the stakeholders.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

The necessary data to collect for evaluation would incorporate a two-pronged approach: gathering information from the students about the prepared bags and collecting financial data for the stakeholders. The qualitative data would include feedback from the students about the contents of the prepackaged bags of items from the food pantry and how useful/fulfilling they were. Were the bags careful of allergies or dietary needs? Could the bags be improved? Was anything missing? The questions would be largely qualitative rather than quantitative. The only quantitative question that would be relevant is inquiring as to how many times the student has accessed the pantry. The best sources for data collection would be the students who access the pantry. Data collection techniques would include voluntary questionnaires and/or interviews with the students.

Client satisfaction surveys will also be useful for evaluating the food pantry program. Royse et al. (2016) state that such surveys are helpful in "indicating prevailing consumer sentiments" (pg. 197). This will assist the food pantry management in determining if the prepared bags are meeting the needs of the students. Such satisfaction surveys can also help because opinions, needs, and situations change (Royse et al., 2016). For example, the needs and situations have probably changed drastically due to COVID. A situation such as COVID would affect the importance and quality of what is necessary and helpful and what can be readily obtained from stakeholders.

The financial aspect would be useful to stakeholders to determine how far their dollar was stretched. These questions would be quantitative rather than qualitative and draw answers from balance sheets, accounting records, and other pertinent financial receipts such as payroll, overhead, and expenses. However, the purpose of this evaluation is to focus on the program itself and how it is benefiting the student community rather than the financial considerations of the program.

Data Collection

Collection Techniques

Voluntary questionnaires

Interviews with students

Financial record analysis (payroll, receipts)

Client Surveys

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

The necessary data to collect for evaluation would incorporate a two-pronged approach: gathering information from the students about the prepared bags and collecting financial data for the stakeholders. The qualitative data would include feedback from the students about the contents of the prepackaged bags of items from the food pantry and how useful/fulfilling they were. Were the bags careful of allergies or dietary needs? Could the bags be improved? Was anything missing? The questions would be largely qualitative rather than quantitative. The only quantitative question that would be relevant is inquiring as to how many times the student has accessed the pantry. The best sources for data collection would be the students themselves who access the pantry. Data collection techniques would include voluntary questionnaires and/or interviews with the students.

The financial aspect would be useful to stakeholders to determine how far their dollar was stretched. These questions would be quantitative rather than qualitative and draw answers from balance sheets, accounting records, and other pertinent financial receipts such as payroll, overhead, and expenses. However, the purpose of this evaluation is to focus on the program itself and how it is benefitting the student community rather than the financial considerations of the program.

Collection Strategy

Communication & interaction allows for ownership

Promotes positive relations

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

The evaluation process will gather information through intangible tools such as communication skills and interacting with the stakeholders (King & Stevahn, 2013). According to King & Stevahn (2013), interactions with stakeholders allow them to truly feel ownership of the program and the evaluation process itself as well as the outcomes. This sense of ownership increases the likelihood the stakeholders will use the results positively for the future of the program.

Strategy 4, Cooperative Interviews, would have questions focusing on the program of interest (the food pantry) for the stakeholders: primarily, their concerns with the program, and any conflicts they foresee. I need to identify the concerns and the goals for the food pantry from the perspective of each stakeholder. The purposes of Cooperative Interviews are to promote positive relations with the stakeholders, develop a shared understanding, and assess evaluation progress (King & Stevahn, 2013). In order to generate this content, pertinent questions will be asked, followed by data collection, and then results will be interpreted. It is important to ask open-ended questions so the stakeholders have freedom of expression. Open-ended questions will also support the identification of themes to identify important concepts previously unidentified.

Collection Strategy

Strategy : Cooperative Interviews

Focus

Concerns

Conflicts

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

Data analysis

SAMPLING METHOD

Purpose Sampling

PROCESS EVALUATION

Monitor and measure the treatment intervention

PRE-EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Best for smaller organizations and programs

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

Purpose sampling was chosen because the study is not concerned with all students who have access to the pantry, as that would include all the students of Syracuse University and SUNY ESF. Having access to the food pantry does not mean a student will necessarily utilize it. This assessment is only concerned with the students who use the food pantry and would be willing to give feedback about it. This interest in a specific group sets purpose sampling apart from convenience sampling due to its particular focus (Royse et al., 2016). Purpose sampling can also assist with future planning of the food pantry bag organization.

The main approach for evaluation is process evaluation as Grinnell, Gabor, & Unrau (2015) argue that social programs such as the SU food pantry "should never gather data to justify their own maintenance needs," as what truly matters is fulfilling the real needs of the clients (pg. 42). The process evaluation would monitor and measure the treatment intervention (Grinnell, Gabor, & Unrau, 2015); in this case, that would be the prepared bags of food and personal supplies. It would also include the entire sequence of events and activities that bring to the project to its objectives: stakeholders, finances, donations, students, volunteers, etc. The process evaluation would also analyze and confirm that the program includes a statement of objectives, definition of populations served, specification of client needs, and description of interventions to meet client needs (Grinnell, Gabor, & Unrau, 2015).

A pre-experimental design is good for businesses and organizations with few resources, such as the SU food pantry or other nonprofit. This design would simply measure if and how well the prepared bags of food and personal items help students in need. A pre-experimental design can be carried out using a one-group posttest-only design, posttest-only with non-equivalent groups design, or a one-group pretest and post-test (Royse et al., 2016).

Data analysis

OBJECTIVE -ORIENTED APPROACH

How goals and objectives are attained and at what success levels

Primary focus of specifying goals and objectives of the program

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

The main approach for evaluation is process evaluation as Grinnell, Gabor, & Unrau (2015) argue that social programs such as the SU food pantry "should never gather data to justify their own maintenance needs," as what truly matters is fulfilling the real needs of the clients (pg. 42). The process evaluation would monitor and measure the treatment intervention (Grinnell, Gabor, & Unrau, 2015); in this case, that would be the prepared bags of food and personal supplies. It would also include the entire sequence of events and activities that brings to the project to its objectives: stakeholders, finances, donations, students, volunteers, etc. The process evaluation would also analyze and confirm that the program includes a statement of objectives, definition of populations served, specification of client needs, and description of interventions to meet client needs (Grinnell, Gabor, & Unrau, 2015).

Cost-benefit analysis

Effort is made to measure both costs and benefits in monetary units

Benefits must outweigh the costs

Do the gains to society exceed the cost?

Numbers aren’t everything!

Dollars must be stretched

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

A cost-benefit analysis will support the belief that the benefits outweigh the cost; in other words, the positive feedback and the actual feeding of hungry students will outweigh the expenses involved in maintaining the pantry. Per Royse et al., "whenever the gains to society exceed the cost, a program is justified in a cost-benefit evaluation" (2016, pg. 292). The quantitative analysis of the program will provide data to individuals such as policy makers, the University financial department, payroll, and other stakeholders invested in the bottom line of cost. It is a general consensus that programs that provide excellent results for the least amount of money are the most efficient (Wodon, Wodon, & Wodon, 2013).

Providing these numbers to financial stakeholders will be an excellent way to show the benefits of the program. However, these stakeholders would be wise to not put all their focus on the spreadsheets; when focusing on cost alone, attention is taken away from the program quality. The qualitative feedback will counter the quantitative feedback and provide a bigger picture. It would be unwise for the SU pantry—or any food pantry—to base its evaluations on solely effectiveness or cost. Focusing on effectiveness alone will forgo the use of data and statistics to help make good decisions; on the other hand, focusing only on cost with detract from the program quality (Puett, 2016).

Effectiveness of social programs is highly important, but unfortunately a program cannot be run on good intentions alone. Money is necessary to keep a program functioning and "dollars have to be stretched as far as possible" (Royse et al., 2016, pg. 284). Identifying and knowing the overall costs of the program is useful to all stakeholders to assist in making better decisions (Royse et al., 2016). Food pantries and food banks provide necessary economic stimuli because food donations free up money to be spent elsewhere (Perryman, 2014). For a college campus it can be argued that food pantries relieve some of the stress felt by hungry students, thus giving them more time and peace of mind to focus on their studies.

Challenges & Mitigations

Ethical concerns

(1) Maintaining Confidentiality,

Informed consent

Protection of Data

(2) Protecting Vulnerable Populations, and

Participants must be over the age of 18

Respect of decisions

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

The program evaluation for Syracuse University’s food pantry identified three potential ethical concerns: (1) maintaining confidentiality; (2) protecting vulnerable populations; and (3) mitigating conflicts of interest.

Informed consent is a major part of ensuring confidentiality. During the informed consent process, participants will voluntarily agree to take part in the study ("Informed Consent", n.d.). If individuals agree to be interviewed during the program evaluation, all confidentiality and privacy must be assured and their voluntary cooperation properly obtained. Those who agree to take part in the study will expect their private information will not be disclosed, except as described in the consent ("Data Security & Destruction", n.d.). The IRB places heavy emphasis on the protection and confidentiality of participants.

Vulnerable populations are described as those who are not capable of self-determination. In my situation, this would include students under the age of 18 (the age of consent in NYS) or anyone with "circumstances that severely restrict liberty" such as mental disability or illness (Belmont Report, 1979). If individual input is required for the program evaluation, it would only accept participants over the age of 18. As a researcher bound to ethical and moral treatment of others, evaluators must also respect decisions to enter or withdraw from the evaluation study and make effort to secure the well-being of participants.

Conflict of interest threatens objectivity of scientific pursuit and may increase the risk of harm (Capella University, 2019). There may be conflict of interest due to the expanse of Syracuse University and its number of employees. However, steps can be taken to reduce the conflict of interest in the form of a management plan to be approved by the IRB. Demonstrating my attention to protection of participants and fair and ethical treatment of all those involved is necessary for a successful program evaluation.

Program evaluators hold several different roles with different expectations. According to the American Evaluation Association (2018), evaluators are responsible for initiating discussion and clarifying ethical matters to participants, responsible for understanding professional development, engage in sound ethical reasoning, and are encouraged to consult with colleagues about identifying and addressing ethical issues. Evaluators must also provide skilled, competent professional services to stakeholders and behave with honesty and transparency to secure the integrity of the evaluation (AEA, 2018). Finally, the AEA directs evaluators to contribute to the common good and honor the dignity of individuals across cultures (2018).

Conflicts of interest are defined as academic, financial, or other personal interests that have potential to directly and significantly compromise professional judgment and objectivity (Capella, 2019). Intangible interests include those of ideas, beliefs, and relationships with research personnel or family. Tangible interests, in contrast, are quantifiable or financial. Conflict of interest threatens the objectivity of scientific pursuit and may increase the risk of harm (Capella, 2019). Evaluators may run into tangible and intangible conflicts of interest while fulfilling their duties in several situations. For example, evaluators may realize they personally know an individual or a stakeholder involved in the evaluation process.

Ethical concerns

(3) Mitigating Conflicts of Interest.

Threats to objectivity

Risk of harm increased

Academic, Financial, or Personal

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

Informed consent is a major part of ensuring confidentiality. During the informed consent process, participants will voluntarily agree to take part in the study ("Informed Consent", n.d.). If individuals agree to be interviewed during the program evaluation, all confidentiality and privacy must be assured as well as properly obtaining their voluntary cooperation. Those who agree to take part in the study will expect their private information will not be disclosed, except as described in the consent ("Data Security & Destruction", n.d.). The IRB places heavy emphasis on the protection and confidentiality of participants.

Vulnerable populations are described as those who are not capable of self-determination. In my situation, this would include students under the age of 18 (the age of consent in NYS) or anyone with "circumstances that severely restrict liberty" such as mental disability or illness (Belmont Report, 1979). If individual input is required for the program evaluation, it would only accept participants over the age of 18. As a researcher bound to ethical and moral treatment of others, evaluators must also respect decisions to enter or withdraw from the evaluation study and take effort to secure the well-being of participants.

Mitigated risks

Several risks existed prior to the evaluation including lack of operational definitions and a faulty cost-benefit analysis.

Without a clear definition of success, a program is "prone to stay on that path to perfection until your product development budget is bled dry" (Weathington, 2016, para. 4). Operational definitions are clear, precise, unambiguous, and detailed descriptions of a specific attribute (Weathington, 2016, para. 4). In this case of food pantry performance, the attribute we are seeking to understand is success. Many programs, especially nonprofit programs, do not have unlimited time or budgets. Having a clear, direct definition of success and how to calculate that success is imperative for the SU Office of Engagement Programs.

Another potential unfavorable outcome was not completing a thorough cost analysis that gives the complete picture of the program results. Focusing on the cost of the program maintenance alone will detract from the effectiveness and impact of the pantry (Puett, 2016). If the evaluation focuses on the effectiveness alone, there will be a limited use of data for the strategic decision-making process (Puett, 2016).

Lack of Operational Definitions

Mitigated: Defined a clear realization of success

Faulty Cost-Benefit Analysis

Mitigated: Focused on the proper balance of costs of the program and benefits of the program

Findings & interpretations

Food pantry services

April 2020: 135 students served

Summer: 35 students served per month

Has changed/increased due to COVID-19

September 2020: 150 students served

October 2020: 200 students served

November 2020: 225 students served

The pandemic has negatively affected the well-being of campus residents. In April 2020, Program Director Syeisha Byrd reported that 135 students utilized the pantry (Hicks, 2020). Over the summer months (also, the nonresidency months) of May, June, and July, the number plummeted to 25. However, when students began returning to campus in August, the number of pantry needs rose to 55 students. The number has steadily increased since then, totaling 225 students as of campus residency closing in November 2020.

Students Served July August September October November 35 75 150 200 225

Cost-Benefit analysis: findings

Computed Costs

Personnel, payroll

Allotted budget (office supplies, utilities, adv.)

Supplemental items

Rough estimate of $100,000 for calendar year

Shadow Costs

Donated goods (supplies, food)

Volunteer time and pay

Estimated at $40,000 for calendar year

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

It is impossible to put a dollar sign on student gratitude.

Computed costs included the costs of personnel, facilities, equipment, and other expenses such as supplemental purchases for the food bags from the perspective of the program director. The program has been going on for quite a while now and the last two years were measured. Putting all this information together about the costs of the program and the outcome data determined the program outcomes and identified the indicators of success (Royse et al., 2016). The largest expense is that of personnel, including payroll.

It is impossible to put a dollar sign on feelings, emotions, and other intangibles. Therefore, the calculated costs of the program (personnel, utilities, etc.) can be weighed in comparison to the amount of donations received for the food bag items. Using a shadow price of the donated goods will attempt to reflect the real cost of goods and services (Royse et al., 2016). No matter what, the benefits must exceed the costs or risks and "whenever the gains to society exceed costs, a program is justified" (Royse et al., 2016, pg. 294).

The program is considered a success due to the overwhelming gains to society, aka the campus community. The qualitative data reveals why.

Qualitative findings

The pandemic has increased stress levels and affected disposable income

Participant A: Without the pantry, “I think I would have been in a lot more debt, or [would have] not completed my degree.”.

Participant B: “We’re never going to food pantry our way out of food insecurity.”

Participant C: The food pantry has the ability to become a “hub for connecting people to community-based services, close to where students live, accessible both in-person and virtually.”

Direct quotes A and B taken from Nargi (2020), link in references.

Direct quote C taken from Vespoli (2020), available in references.

recommendations

The focus of evaluations is described by various scholars in terms of effort, performance, adequacy, efficiency, process, accessibility, and availability (Royse et al., 2016). The concepts of continuity, awareness, and cost of services are also important (Royse et al., 2016). The CDC (2017) outlines four groups of 30 standards: utility standards, feasibility standards, propriety standards, and accuracy standards. Additionally, it is important that the evaluation is culturally competent and inclusive. This goes hand in hand with values, ethics, and respect of others. Being culturally competent can guard against biases and conflicts of interest and improve communication and understanding (CDC, 2017). Maintaining cultural competence hearkens back to the Ethical Code of Conduct for Psychologists, as it demands respect of all people, improves communication, and avoids potential conflicts of interest (Fisher, 2017).

Cultural competence, utility standards, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy standards will all assist in building the proper evaluation design for the SU food pantry. Utility standards will ensure that the evaluation will serve the informative needs of the food pantry participants. The utility standards also ensure that useful information is properly and clearly shared with the stakeholders (Grinnell, 2015). Feasibility will require the evaluation to be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal (CDC, 2017). Propriety standards state that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of all those involved and affected. Accuracy standards reveal and convey adequate information about features that determine the worth or merit of the food pantry program (CDC, 2017).

continue food pantry

Continue engaging stakeholders

Maintain and promote cultural competency and inclusiveness

conclusions

Evaluating the effectiveness and success of the Syracuse University food pantry was critical for continued stakeholder engagement.

The cost-benefit analysis was particularly helpful in proving that the gains to society exceed the cost and thus justify continuance of the program.

conclusions

Both qualitative and quantitative data from the evaluation provided stakeholders with information to better guide the future of the food pantry.

The food pantry is a necessary and indisputable part of the campus tapestry that provides food, supplies, and community to its students.

References

American Evaluation Association. (2018). 2018 updated guiding principles. https://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51

Capella University. (2019). Conflict of interest in research. University Policy Statement. https://www.capella.edu/content/dam/capella/PDF/policies/3.03.05.pdf

Capella University, (n.d.). Research & scholarship. https://campus.capella.edu/doctoralprograms/research-scholarship/research-ethics-education

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Evaluation standards. https://www.cdc.gov/eval/standards/index.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Identifying and determining involvement of stakeholders. https://www.cdc.gov/std/Program/pupestd/Identifying%20and%20Determining%20Stakeholders.pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). A call to action by stakeholders: United States food loss and waste 2030 reduction. EPA digital publication. https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/call-action-stakeholders-united-states-food-loss-waste-2030-reduction

Fisher, C. B. (2017). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists (4th ed.). Sage.

Grinnell, R. M., Jr., Gabor, P. A., & Unrau, Y. A. (2015). Four types of evaluations. In Program evaluation for social workers (pp. 36–45). Oxford University Press.

Hatem, C., Lee, C. Y., Zhao, X., Reesor-Oyer, L., Lopez, T., & Hernandez, D. C. (2020). Food insecurity and housing instability during early childhood as predictors of adolescent mental health. Journal of Family Psychology, 34(6), 721–730. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000651

Huitt, W. (2020). Unit 2 Discussion 1. Courseroom communication.

References

ImpactMatters. (n.d.). Food distribution. https://www.impactmatters.org/methodology/program-analysis-methodology/food-distribution.html

King, J. A., & Stevahn, L. (2013). Interactive evaluation practice: Mastering the interpersonal dynamics of program evaluation. Sage.

Kuhn, J., Bair-Merritt, M., Xuan, Z., & Kistin, C. J. (2020). Links between health-related social needs and mental health care disparities: Implications for clinical practice. Clinical Practice in Pediatric Psychology, 8(2), 103–114.

LSS Food Pantries. (2016). What is a food pantry? https://lssnetworkofhope.org/foodpantries/services/what-is-a-food-pantry/

Nargi, L. (2020). College food pantries are reinventing ways to feed students. Civil Eats. https://civileats.com/2020/07/27/college-food-pantries-are-reinventing-ways-to-feed-students/#:~:text=In%20the%20shortterm%2C%20though%2C%20pantries%20can%20provide%20necessary,lower%20grades%20and%20suffer%20higher%20levels%20of%20stress

References

Office of Engagement Programs. (n.d.). http://hendricks.syr.edu/engagementprograms/index.html

Puett, C. (2016). Cost-effectiveness analysis for nutrition and food security. Action Against Hunger. http://actionagainsthunger.org/blog/cost-effectivess-for-nurition-food-security

Roman, N. E. (2017). Food bank success should be measured by quality, not quantity. Giving Compass. https://www.givingcompass.org/article/food-bank-success-should-be-measured-by-quality-not-quantity/

Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2016). Program evaluation: An introduction to an evidence-based approach (6th ed.). Cengage.

Solomon, J. (2019, November 27). College food pantries: Ending food insecurity among college students. https://universitybusiness.com/food-pantries-work-to-end-campus-hunger/

References

Syracuse University Resource Guide. (2016). http://hendricks.syr.edu/_documents/Resource%20Guide1.pdf

Syracuse University Hendricks Chapel. (n.d.). Food pantry. http://hendricks.syr.edu/programs-and-services/food-pantry.html

Taylor, S., Tucker, J., & Richman, N. (2012). Identifying partners and convening stakeholders. CDFI Fund [Handbook]. https://www.cdfifund.gov/Documents/Covening_Stakeholders_07032012.pdf

The Belmont Report. (1979). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html#xrespect

Vespoli, L. (2020). College food pantries have grown exponentially in recent years, an attempt to address rising food insecurity. What happens when campus is closed? The Counter. https://thecounter.org/college-food-pantries-rising-food-insecurity-covid-19-coronavirus/

References

Weathington, J. (2016). Why clear operational definitions are critical for data analysis success. TechRepublic. https://www.techrepublic.com/article/why-clear-operation-definitions-are-critical-for-data-analytics-success/

Wodon, D., Wodon, N., & Wodon, Q. (2013). How cost effective are food pantry programs for the poor likely to be? MPRA Paper 56945. University of Munich, Germany. http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/56945.html

References