Due 4/7/19 by 3PM EST To ensure the success of a program evaluation, a social worker must generate a specific detailed plan. That plan should describe the goal of the evaluation, the information needed, and the methods and analysis to be used. In addition, the plan should identify and address the concerns of stakeholders. A social worker should present information about the plan in a manner that the stakeholders can understand. This will help the social worker receive the support necessary for a successful evaluation. To prepare for this Assignment, identify a program evaluation you would like to conduct for a program with which you are familiar. Consider the details of the evaluation, including the purpose, specific questions to address, and type of information to collect. Then, consider the stakeholders that would be involved in approving that evaluation. Review the resources for samples of program evaluations. Submit the following: (Be very specific and expound on ideas, use APA references and use bulleted points) - Please note Kellogg file can be download via internet. The file is too large to send) You can also use 2 new peer reviewed articles as well. A 1-page stakeholder analysis that identifies the stakeholders, their role in the agency and any concerns that they might have about the proposed program evaluation A 2- to 3-page draft of the program evaluation plan to submit to the stakeholders that: Identifies the purpose of the evaluation Describes the questions that will be addressed and the type of information that will be collected Addresses the concerns of the stakeholders that you identified in your Stakeholder Analysis ReferencesDudley, J. R. (2014). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. (2nd ed.) Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books.Chapter 1, “Evaluation and Social Work: Making the Connection” (pp. 1–26)Chapter 4, “Common Types of Evaluations” (pp. 71-89)Chapter 5, “Focusing an Evaluation” (pp. 90-105)T.K., & Royse, D. (2010). Program evaluation studies. In B. Thyer (Ed.), The handbook of social work research methods (2nd ed., pp.221-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (PDF).W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (n.d.). W.K. Kellogg foundation evaluation handbook. Retrieved October 08, 2013, from http:www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2010/w-k-kellogg-foundation-evaluation-handbook.aspx Chapter 3, "Three Levels of Evaluation" (pp. 14-18) Chapter 5, "Planning and ImplementingProject-Level Evaluation" (pp. 47-104)

Assignment DetailsSalary negotiation is a tricky subject. It is a balancing act of wanting a position, wanting to be compensated appropriately for the skills you have and the work you will do, and the worry that if you ask for too much money, you might not be offered the position. In this Discussion Board, address the following:How would you respond to the following question from a potential employer: "What kind of salary are you looking for from this position?"Describe your thought process and how you would approach this situation.Have you been in this situation before? How did you respond?How did your response affect the job offer (or lack of an offer) that you received?Review other students' posts, evaluate their salary negotiation methods, and address the following in your replies:Do you feel that the methods would be effective?Have you ever used the suggested methods? If so, how did it work?Do you feel that there is a potential risk with the use of this method? What about the potential reward?Discussion Board Reminders: Must have three posts: A main post and two replies to peers.First post: Either your main post or a reply to others must be posted before midnight CT (Central time) on Friday of each week.Second and third post: Must be posted on a different day from the first post.Connect to content: At least one post must refer to course learning materials. See the Academic Resource on Discussion Boards for help with connecting to the content.Engaging in class discussions: For more information on making the most of your class dialog, review the Academic Resource on Discussion Boards. Grading RubricAssignment CriteriaProficient DescriptorPointsQuality of Main Post16 Points TotalStudent’s main post meets or exceeds the following requirements:Responds completely to all of parts of discussion question (4 points)Communicates content information accurately and/or logically (4 points)Delivers a thoughtful response demonstrating insights and reflections (4 points)Connects to both key content concepts and personal experiences (4 points)/16 pts.Response to Peers16 PointsTotalResponds to a minimum of two peers (8 points per response)Substantive response (4 points)Furthers the conversation with peers. Examples could include (4 points):Provides additional resourcesConnects to key conceptsShares personal or professional experiencesContributes new information or perspectivePresents a competing viewpoint/16 pts.Support from Learning Resources4 PointsTotalAt least one post refers to course learning resources./4 pts.Professional Writing4 pointsResponse is well-organized, clear, and free of grammatical and mechanical errors.Posts demonstrate courtesy and respect for others./4 pts.Total40 points possible/40 pts.

Book Review: Cutting for StoneFor this assignment you will write a book review for either "Cutting for Stone by Abraham Verghese Note: Minimum number of word for this assignment is 1,500 single spaced. Less than 1500 will have point deductions, more is acceptableUse APA style for both in text citation and in the reference section Cite all sources of information or data used in your review that are not your ownIf you quote from the book under review, simply follow the quotation with the page number(s) in parentheses. For example: The author argues that “American women seem to have preferred careers over parenting” (p. 345).Quotes that go over three lines in length should be single-spaced in a “block quote” format with the page citation at the end of the block quote.If you have to cite other sources for quotations or facts, use APA citation style.Reviews should be written in a formal manner. As with other written assignments, be sure to avoid using colloquialisms (“a lot” or “etc.”), contractions (“cannot” instead of “can’t”) and avoid using the first person (I, you, we, us). Include references at the end of your report - especially the main book being reviewed.Open the Purdue Owl website below on writing a book review and follow the writing structure indicated. Review the rubric provided below to ensure you cover all the necessary pointsReview the examples of book reviews providedResources for writing critical book review- https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/704/1/This is an important website - The link provides information on what to do before you read the book, while you read the book and finally when you are ready to write the book review. Please review this carefully as this is precisely how I expect your book reviews to be structured. Outline the ReviewThe following outline is only a suggestion; it is not a model that you should necessarily follow for all reviews. You may find it appropriate to add, combine, eliminate, or rearrange some points. The developed outline will then serve as the basis for your formal written book review.I. Introductiona. Purpose of the book b. Author’s qualifications and viewpoint. Use another source other than the book you’re reviewing to gain information bout the author(s). At the end of your review, cite the source as per APA standards II. Summary and critical assessment of the author’s argumenta. Thesis of the bookb. Summary of book’s content, indicating how the thesis is developed. Use examples to illustrate.c. Assess the credibility of the argument.III. Critical assessment of booka. Organizationb. Style and presentation (word choice, paragraph structure, wit, readability, length, etc.)c. Use of supporting materials (footnotes/endnotes, pictures, graphs, maps, charts, tables, index, etc.)d. Intended audience (What readership is the author hoping to reach? Is the book academic in orientation or is it more popular history?)IV. Conclusiona. Historical contribution of the book. (How does the book fit into prevailing interpretation of the subject? Does it answer a troublesome question? Does it break new ground? Does it revise older interpretations? Does it merely clarify and simplify the standard point of view?Where does the book fit in the literature on the topic?)b. Overall worth of the book (Would you recommend it? For what type of audience would it be best suited? Did the author accomplish his/her purpose?) - https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/history/resou... This site has the 10 most important questions to answer when writing your book review, please review them as it will assist you in structuring your book review.