Response

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.

Please use references

Refer to chapter 8 Dudley

Blog 1 Respond

Process Evaluation

            Process evaluation uses empirical data to assess the delivery of programs, verifying what the program is and whether it is being implemented as designed. (Bliss & Emshoff, 2002).  A focus group, with 10 social workers with diverse experiences, was conducted to explore the application of a cross-system collaboration and its effect on service delivery outcomes. (Plummer et al., 2014).  Eight questions exploring the strengths and barriers were asked and carefully transcribed and inputted into a qualitative data analysis software. (Plummer et al., 2014).  Every participant provided feedback to the facilitator which was useful in exploring new ways of delivering services and encouraging greater cooperation. (Plummer et al., 2014).

            The process evaluation chosen was implementation evaluation which focuses the staff adherence to the intervention protocol. (Dudley, 2014).  Implementation evaluation is not directly concerned with performance, rather it focuses on staff adherence and competence in carrying out a specific treatment protocol. (Dudley, 2014).  Measurements of adherence focus on the quantity or presence of set treatment activities defined in an intervention manual or other established protocols. (Dudley, 2014).  Implementation evaluation is essential in ensuring the appropriate delivery of an intervention.  An agency could be implementing the best available program but if its staff is unable to adhere to the protocol, the program would not be successful. 

Stage

            The stage where the evaluation will take place is the implementation stage.  Informants should include staff and participants and questions asked should include the frequency of treatment activities outlined in the intervention protocols.  The questions should also address the competence of the practitioner. 

The parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) is a program for children three to eight years of age with disruptive behavior problems.  Therapists must adhere closely to the treatment manual and much of the work focuses on working with parents. (Dudley, 2014).  Each session has a list of activities and the therapist and the parent complete checklists to verify they have been addressed. (Dudley, 2014).  Practitioners must also have high levels of competence, being able to convey warmth, empathy, and genuineness. (Dudley, 2014).  

            While the checklists confirm whether the activities were completed or not, it does not have a section to identify the reasons for any missed activities.  This information may be important in identifying the barriers to service delivery and how to improve delivery.  The process evaluation must be able to determine whether or not the practitioners and participants are following the protocol outlined in the manual.  Barriers to adhering to the protocol should also be noted to improve the delivery of the program. 

Resources

Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Bliss, M. J., & Emshoff, J. G. (2002). Workbook for designing a process evaluation. Retrieved from http://beta.roadsafetyevaluation.com/evaluationguides/info/workbook-for-designing-a-process-evaluation.pdf (PDF)

Plummer, S.-B., Makris, S., & Brocksen S. (Eds.). (2014). Social work case studies: Concentration year. Baltimore, MD: Laureate International Universities Publishing. [Vital Source e-reader]. “Social Work Research: Qualitative Groups” (pp. 68–69)

Blog 2- Respond

Process Evaluation Example 

It is more common for workers to focus more on the mothers of children than the fathers (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). This could potentially undermine risk management or limit resources available (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). This program involves a training intervention for child protection social workers that is designed to improve father engagement (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). The reason I chose this example is because the more I think about it, the more the statement is true. There was one family that I worked with that had dad figure involved in our sessions, the other families it was usually the mom sitting in sessions. Fathers should be included in any treatment. The stage was the pre-intervention stage and the informants were social workers and families. 

This intervention was developed by those who had expertise in the field of father engagement or working with men (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). The goal was to improve social worker engagement of men in the child protection process with four main objectives (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). The objective are to recognize the benefits of working with men for improving the safety of children, to enhance social workers’ knowledge in relation to work with fathers, to enhance inter-personal skills for engaging with reluctant clients, and for social workers to feel more confident and effective in working with fathers (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). 

There were two questions asked: Have you got any thoughts on your own training needs in relation to working with fathers?  Are there any things you would like to see social workers do differently?

For the first question two of the managers recommended guidance on the process of challenging difficult people (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). There may be some aggression when parents feel that their parenting skills are questioned (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). Another manager stated the need for good communication skills that are based upon strategies of enabling ways of talking to people, especially those do not want to engage or are evasive (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012).  The second question responses were from fathers that felt like they were being talked at and one stated he did not understand what he was being told (Maxwell, Scourfield, Holland, Featherstone, & Lee, 2012). 

Comparing the case study and program evaluation report 

Process Evaluation determines whether program activities have been implemented as intended and resulted in certain outputs (Dudley, 2014). The case study and program evaluation report were both qualitative data. The program evaluation report gave questions and the responses, however, Plummer did not specify.  Plummer only mentioned that the feedback that was obtained was useful in exploring new ways of delivering services and encouraging greater cooperation (2014). 

References

Dudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.

Maxwell, N., Scourfield, J., Holland, S., Featherstone, B., & Lee, J. (2012). The benefits and challenges of training child protection social workers in father engagement. Child Abuse Review, 21(4), 299–310.

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].

Top of Form