According to the text, in order to do a meaningful evaluation of a social work program, the individual
must first know how the program was designed around its mission statement (Grinnell, Gabor & Unrau,
2015). Based off what this implies, the mission statement provides a sense of direction (Grinnell, Gabor
& Unrau, 2015). Stemming from the direction provided by the mission statement, every program's logic
and model stems from the idea of theory (Grinnell, Gabor & Unrau, 2015). The program theory is an
explanation of how client change is suppose to be brought about (Grinnell, Gabor & Unrau, 2015).
Programs that use a theoretical approach also use theory as making the program theory more explicit
(Grinnell, Gabor & Unrau, 2015). Each program has (overtime) been evaluated and considered of their
effectiveness. When using a theory to explain how and why a program is used, it is even more
prominent to have that logical model pin point its process to the program's expected outcome (Grinnell,
Gabor & Unrau, 2015). Seeing the program's outcome in a clear vision (Grinnell, Gabor & Unrau, 2015).
The logic model that I would choose to use would be a program that I am interested in working. This
logic model consist of my community's need/issue, interventions, and outcome (How to develop a
program logic model, 2018). Based off my community there are needs where they are suffering from
poor nutrition and health related issues (How to develop a program logic model, 2018). The
interventions for this would be nutrition educational forums and nutrition health experts coming to
speak at an open rally (How to develop a program logic model, 2018). Also, referral services such as gym
memberships and nurtritionist. The intended outcome will be more healthy families (How to develop a
program logic model, 2018). This was chosen as my choice, because many young people and old are
becoming more and more unhealthy just based off the food they are eating/intaking. One's health
should be taken seriously and treated as a priority. Although it is much more easy and fast to just go and
grab something, referrals in chef classes and cooking techniques could also be beneficial.
With that being said, the purpose of this program's design would be to effectively communicate the
services being delivered and to whom they are being delivered to. Using implementation within the logic
model created can also be of relevance (Grinnell, Gabor & Unrau, 2015). Perhaps incorporating the the
program's goal which is to assist those unhealthy family or less active families with recognizing the
importance of their health and the longevity of their lives (How to develop a program logic model,
2018). Program's mission statement consist of their being "no lives left behind. " This entails that every
individual under this program will be saved. Not saying that those whom are not involved will die,
because that would not be fair to say, but just referring back to the goal of the program saying those
who are using it can/will become more healthy or more healthy. The programs outputs are those
families receiving services or those individuals involved attending the health/nutrition forums (How to
develop a program logic model, 2018). Lastly, as previously mentioned the outcome would be for the
families and or individuals of that family to live a healthy prosperous life along with changes in behavior
(eating more healthy foods), and obtaining skills, knowledge, and better attitudes about the healthier
foods available (How to develop a program logic model, 2018).
I do not necessarily see any objectives for this particular logic model chosen. I know more intervention
techniques could be the use of food stamps, governmental assistance, TAP, and etc.
References
Grinnell, R. M., Gabor, P. A., & Unrau, Y. A. (2015). Program evaluation for social workers:
Foundations of evidence-based programs. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral-proquestcom.library.capella.edu
How to Develop a Program Logic Model. (2018). Retrieved July 24, 2018, from
https://www.nationalservice.gov/sites/default/files/upload/OpAC Logic Model draft in progress.pdf
PART
II
Designing Programs
Part II contains two very important chapters that explain
how to construct social work programs with the aid of
logic models. They provide the foundational knowledge
that students need to appreciate and understand when it
comes to knowing what their programs are actually trying
to accomplish (program objectives) before the programs
can be “evaluated” in any meaningful way (Part III).
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Chapter 7
The program
Part II
Creating programs
Chapter 8
Theory of
change and
logic models
Chapter 7 discusses the “meat and potatoes” of a
social work program. That is, we discuss agency mission
statements and goals and how the programs within
them are organized to meet the agency’s overall goal.
The chapter presents the requirements that are needed
for a program to be labeled “evidence-based” and presents a few factors to consider when selecting one for any
given community. The chapter then explains how to write
goals and program objectives. In addition, it focuses on
selecting indicators to measure program objectives and
touches upon the relationship between practice objectives and practice activities. It ends with a brief discussion on why it’s important for programs to have logic
models.
Chapter 8 begins where Chapter 7 left off and is a logical extension of Chapter 7; that is, it describes in detail
how to construct program logic models from theory of
change models. More important, it describes how program logic models can aid us in designing program evaluations.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
CHAPTER OUTLINE
THE AGENCY
WRITING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Mission Statements
Specific (S)
Goals
Measurable (M)
THE PROGRAM
Naming Programs
Achievable (A)
Realistic (R)
Time Phased (T)
An Agency Versus a Program
INDICATORS
DESIGNING PROGRAMS
Evidence-Based Programs
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
WRITING PROGRAM GOALS
PRACTICE OBJECTIVES
Example: Bob’s Self-Sufficiency
Preparing for Unintended Consequences
PRACTICE ACTIVITIES
PROGRAM GOALS VERSUS
AGENCY GOALS
LOGIC MODELS
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Knowledge-Based Objectives
Positions Your Program for Success
Simple and Straightforward Pictures
Reflect Group Process and Shared Understanding
Change Over Time
Affect-Based Objectives
Behaviorally Based Objectives
SUMMARY
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
7
A nation that continues year after
year to spend more money on military
defense than on programs of social
uplift is approaching spiritual doom.
Chapter
THE PROGRAM
~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
W
ith the background of the previous six chapters in mind, you’re now in an excellent position to see how social work programs are
actually designed. Remember, your evaluation will be
done within a program so you have no other alternative but to understand how your evaluation will be
influenced by its design.
We begin this chapter with the immediate environment of your program—the larger organization
that it’s housed within, commonly referred to as a
social service agency.
THE AGENCY
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
A social service agency is an organization that exists
to fill a legitimate social purpose such as:
• To protect children from physical, sexual, and
emotional harm
• To enhance quality of life for developmentally
delayed adolescents
• To improve nutritional health for
housebound senior citizens
Agencies can be public and funded entirely by the
state and/or federal government or private and funded
by private funds, deriving some monies from governmental sources and some from client fees, charitable
bodies, private donations, fund-raising activities, and
so forth. It’s common for agencies to be funded by
many different types of funding sources. When several sources of funding are provided to an agency, the
agency’s funds (in their totality) are called “blended
funds.” Regardless of the funding source(s), agencies
obtain their unique identities by their:
• Mission statements
• Goals
Mission Statements
All agencies have mission statements that provide the
unique written philosophical perspective of what they
are all about and make explicit the reasons for their
existence. Mission statements sometimes are called
philosophical statements or simply an agency’s philosophy. Whatever it’s called, a mission statement articulates a common vision for the agency in that it provides
a point of reference for all major planning decisions.
You cannot do a meaningful evaluation of a
social work program without first knowing
how the program has been designed around
its mission statement.
A mission statement is like a lighthouse in that it
exists to provide a general direction. It not only provides clarity of purpose to persons within the agency
but also helps them to gain an understanding and
support from the stakeholders outside the agency who
are unquestionably influential to the agency’s overall
success (see Chapter 1).
Mission statements are usually given formal
approval and sanction by legislators for public agencies or by executive boards for private ones. They can
range from one sentence to 10 pages or more and are
as varied as the agencies they represent such as,
141
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
142
Part II: Designing Programs
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
• This agency strives to provide a variety of
support services to families and children in
need, while in the process maintaining their
rights, their safety, and their human dignity.
• The mission of this agency is to promote and
protect the mental health of the elderly people
residing in this state by offering quality
and timely programs that will deliver these
services.
• The mission of this agency is to treat clients
as partners in their therapy, and all services
should be short-term, intensive, and focus on
problems in day-to-day life and work.
• The mission of this agency is to protect and
promote the physical and social well-being
of this city by ensuring the development and
delivery of culturally competent services that
encourage and support individual, family,
and community independence, self-reliance,
and civic responsibility to the greatest degree
possible.
In short, an agency’s mission statement lays the
overall conceptual foundation for all of the programs
housed within it because each program (soon to be
discussed) must be logically connected to the overarching intent of the agency as declared by its mission
statement. Note that mission statements capture the
general type of clients to be served as well as communicate the essence of the services they offer their
clients. Creating mission statements is a process of
bringing interested stakeholders together to agree on
the overall direction and tone of the agency.
A mission statement articulates a common
vision for the agency in that it provides a
point of reference for all major planning
decisions.
The process of creating mission statements is
affected by available words in a language as well as
the meaning given to those words by individual
stakeholders. Because mission statements express the
broad intention of an agency, they set the stage for all
program planning within the agency and are essential
to the development of the agency’s goal.
Goals
As should be evident by now, social service agencies
are established in an effort to reduce gaps between the
current and the desired state of a social problem for a
specific client population. Mission statements can be
lofty and include several philosophical declarations,
but the agency goal is more concise; there is only one
goal per agency. An agency’s goal is always defined at
a conceptual level, and it’s never measured directly.
Its main ambition is to guide us toward effective and
accountable service delivery.
Requirements for Goals
It’s essential that an agency’s goal reflects the
agency’s mandate and is guided by its mission statement. This is achieved by forming a goal with the following four components:
1. The nature of the current social problem to be
tackled
2. The client population to be served
3. The general direction of anticipated client
change (desired state)
4. The means by which the change is supposed
to be brought about
Agency goals can be broad or narrow. Let’s look
at two generic examples:
• Agency Goal—National: The goal of this
agency is to enhance the quality of life of
this nation’s families (client population to
be served) who depend on public funds
for day-to-day living (social problem to be
tackled). The agency supports reducing
long-term dependence on public funds
(general direction of anticipated client change)
by offering innovative programs that increase
the self-sufficiency and employability of
welfare-dependent citizens (means by which
the change is supposed to be brought about).
• Agency Goal—Local: The goal of this agency
is to help youth from low socioeconomic
households in this city (client population to
be served) who are dropping out of school
(current social problem to be tackled) to stay
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 7: The Program
in school (general direction of anticipated
client change) by providing mentorship and
tutoring programs in local neighborhoods
(means by which the change is supposed to be
brought about).
As discussed in Chapter 1, national agencies, for
example, are clearly broader in boundary and size
than local ones. Additionally, more complex agencies
such as those serving multiple client populations or
addressing multiple social problems will capture a
more expansive population or problem area in their
goal statements.
An agency’s goal statement must be broad
enough to encompass all of its programs; that
is, each program within an agency must have
a direct and logical connection to the agency
that governs it.
However small or large, an agency functions as a
single entity and the agency’s goal statement serves to
unify all of its programs.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
THE PROGRAM
Whatever the current social problem, the desired
future state of the problem, or the population that the
agency wishes to serve, an agency sets up programs
to help work toward its intended result—the agency’s
goal. There are as many ways to organize social service
programs as there are people willing to be involved in
the task. And just about everyone has an opinion on
how agencies should structure the programs housed
within them.
Mapping out the relationship among programs is
a process that is often obscured by the fact that the
term program can be used to refer the different levels of service delivery within an agency (e.g., Figures
7.1, 7.2, and 7.3, ). In other words, some programs can
be seen as subcomponents of larger ones; for example, in Figure 7.3, “Public Awareness Services” falls
under the “Nonresidential Program” for the Women’s
Emergency Shelter.
143
Family Service Agency
Group Home Program
Family Counseling
Program
Adoption Program
Treatment Foster Care
Progam
Family Support Program
Figure 7.1: Simple organizational chart of a family service agency.
Figure 7.1 presents a simple structure of a family service agency serving families and children. Each
program included in the Family Service Agency is
expected to have some connection to serving families. The Family Support Program and the Family
Counseling Program have an obvious connection,
given their titles. The Group Home Program, however, has no obvious connection; its title reveals nothing about who resides in the group home or for what
purpose.
Because the Group Home Program operates
under the auspices of “family services,” it’s likely that
it temporarily houses children and youth who eventually will return to their families. Most important,
the agency does not offer programs that are geared
toward other target groups such as the elderly, veterans, refugees, or the homeless.
By glancing at Figure 7.1, it can be easily seen
that this particular family service agency has five programs within it that deal with families and children,
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
144
Part II: Designing Programs
the agency’s target population: a group home program
for children, a family counseling program, a child
adoption program, a treatment foster care program,
and a family support program.
Figure 7.2 provides another example of an agency
that also deals with families and children. This
agency (Richmond Family Services) has only two programs, a Behavioral Adaptation Treatment Program
and a Receiving and Assessment Family Home
Program. The latter is further broken down into two
components—a Family Support Component and a
Receiving and Assessment Component. In addition,
the Receiving and Assessment Component is further
broken down into Crisis Support Services, Child Care
Services, and Family Home Provider Services.
How many programs are there in Figure 7.2?
The answer is two—however, we need to note that
this agency conceptualized its service delivery much
more thoroughly than did the agency outlined in
Figure 7.1. Richmond Family Services has conceptualized the Receiving and Assessment Component of
its Receiving and Assessment Family Home Program
into three separate subcomponents: Crisis Support
Services, Child Care Services, and Family Home
Provider Services. In short, Figure 7.2 is more detailed
in how it delivers its services than is the agency represented in Figure 7.1. Programs that are more clearly
defined are generally easier to implement, operate,
and evaluate.
Another example of how programs can be organized under an agency is presented in Figure 7.3.
This agency, the Women’s Emergency Shelter, has a
Residential Program and a Nonresidential Program.
Its Residential Program has Crisis Counseling
Services and Children’s Support Services, and the
Nonresidential Program has Crisis Counseling
Services and Public Awareness Services. This
agency distinguishes the services it provides
between the women who stay within the shelter (its
Residential Program) and those who come and go
(its Nonresidential Program). The agency could have
conceptualized the services it offers in a number of
different ways.
A final example of how an agency can map out
its services is presented in Figure 7.4. As can be seen,
the agency’s Child Welfare Program is broken down
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Richmond Family
Services
Behavioral Adaption
Treatment Program
Receiving and Assessment
Family Home Program
Family Support Component
Receiving and Assessment
Component
Crisis Support Services
Child Care Services
Family Home Provider
Services
Figure 7.2: Organizational chart of a family service agency (highlighting the Receiving and Assessment Family Home Program).
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 7: The Program
145
Women's Emergency
Shelter
Residential Program
Nonresidential Program
Crisis Counseling
Services
Crisis Counseling
Services
Children's Support
Services
Public Awareness
Services
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Figure 7.3: Organizational chart of a women’s emergency shelter.
into three services, and the Native Child Protection
Services is further subdivided into four components: an Investigation Component, a Family Service
Child in Parental Care Component, a Family Services
Child in Temporary Alternate Care Component, and
a Permanent Guardianship Component.
The general rule of ensuring that programs
within an agency are logically linked together may
seem simple enough that you might be wondering
why we are emphasizing this point. The reality is that
way too many programs are added to agencies on a
haphazard, chaotic, and disorganized basis. This
is because new programs spring out of last-minute
funding opportunities that come available for new,
but totally dissimilar, programs (to the agency’s goal,
that is). While a social service administrator must
constantly seek new resources to provide better and/
or additional services within the agency’s programs,
it’s important that new and additional programs do
not compromise existing ones.
By simply glancing at Figures 7.1–7.4 it can be
seen that how an agency labels its programs and subprograms is arbitrary. For example, the agency that
represents Figure 7.2 labels its subprograms as components and its sub-subprograms as services. The
agency that represents Figure 7.3 simply labels its
subprograms as services. The main point is that an
agency must design its programs, components, and
services in a logical way that makes the most sense in
view of the agency’s overall goal, which is guided by
its mission statement and mandate.
Naming Programs
There is no standard approach to naming programs
in the social services, but there are themes that may
assist with organizing an agency’s programs. We present four themes and suggest, as a general rule, that
you pick only one (or one combination) to systematically name all of its programs:
• Function, such as Adoption Program or
Family Support Program
• Setting, such as Group Home Program or
Residential Program
• Target population, such as Services for the
Handicapped Program
• Social problem, such as Child Sexual Abuse
Program or Behavioral Adaptation Treatment
Program
Program names can include acronyms such as
P.E.T. (Parent Effectiveness Training), IY (Incredible
Years: A Parent Training Program), or catchy titles
such as Incredible Edibles (a nutritional program for
children). The appeal of such program names is that
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
146
Part II: Designing Programs
Social Services
(Region A)
Income Security
Program
Child Welfare
Program
Services for the
Handicapped Program
Child Protection
Services
Native Child
Protection Services
Placement &
Counseling Services
Investigation Component
Family Service Child in
Paretnal Care Component
Family Service Child in Temporary
Alternate Care Component
Permanent Guardianship Component
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Figure 7.4: Organizational chart of a state’s social service delivery system (highlighting the Native Child Protection Services).
they are endearing to the program’s staff and clients
alike who only are familiar with the program’s services in the first place. Other’s will not have clue to
what the program is all about. However, unless the
chic acronym (the program’s name) is accompanied
by a substantial marketing strategy, the program
will go unnoticed by the general public, other social
service providers, potential funders, and potential
clients alike.
Therefore, the primary purpose of a program
should be reflected in the program’s name. Including
the target social problem (or the main client need)
in the program’s name simplifies communication of
a program’s purpose. In this way, a program’s name
is linked to its goal, and there is less confusion about
what services it offers.
Nondescript program names can lead to confusion in understanding a program’s purpose. The
Group Home Program in Figure 7.1, for example, suggests that this program aims to provide a residence for
clients. In fact, all clients residing in the group home
are there to fulfill a specific purpose. Depending on
the goal of the program, the primary purpose could
be to offer shelter and safety for teenage runaways. Or
the program’s aim might be the enhanced functioning of adolescents with developmental disabilities, for
example.
An Agency Versus a Program
What’s the difference between an agency and a program? Like an agency, a program is an organization
that also exists to fulfill a social purpose. There is
one main difference, however: a program has a narrower, better defined purpose and is always nested
within an agency. Nevertheless, sometimes an
agency may itself have a narrow, well-defined purpose. The sole purpose of a counseling agency, for
example, may be to serve couples who struggle with
a sexual dysfunction.
In this case, the agency comprises only one program, and the terms agency and program refer to the
same thing. If the clientele happens to include a high
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 7: The Program
proportion of couples who are infertile, for example, it
may later be decided that some staff members should
specialize in infertility counseling (with a physician
as a co-counselor) while other workers continue to
deal with all other aspects of sexual dysfunction.
In this case, there would then be two distinct sets
of social work staff (or the same staff who provide two
distinct independent interventions), each focusing on
a different goal, and two separate types of clients; that
is, there would be two programs (one geared toward
infertility counseling and the other toward sexual
dysfunction). Creating programs that target specific
problems and populations facilitates the development of evidence-based knowledge because workers
can hone the focus of their professional development
on specialized knowledge and skills. However, the
agency, with its board, its senior administrator (executive director), and its administrative policies and
procedures, would remain as a single entity.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
DESIGNING PROGRAMS
Building or creating a social work program involves
general and specific thinking about a program. The
process begins by articulating a program’s general
intentions for solving identified social problems—the
conceptualization or idea of the program’s purpose.
It also involves setting specific plans for how the program is to accomplish what it sets out to do.
A program for children who are sexually aggressive, for example, may aim to reduce the deviant sexual behavior of its young clients (i.e., the intention)
by providing individual counseling (i.e., the plan for
achieving the intention). A major purpose of a program’s design is to easily communicate a model of
service delivery to interested stakeholders. A program’s design, via the use of a logic model, provides
a blueprint for implementing its services, monitoring
its activities, and evaluating both its operations and
achievements.
Program designs present plausible and logical plans
for how programs aim to produce change for their clients. Therefore, implicit in every program logic model
147
is the idea of theory—an explanation for how client
change is suppose to be brought about (to be discussed
in depth in the following chapter). The program for children who are sexually aggressive, for example, suggests
that such children will reduce their sexual perpetration
by gaining understanding or insight through sessions
with an individual counselor. Programs that articulate a
specific theoretical approach, such as psychoanalytic or
behavior counseling, make their program theory more
explicit. And, the more explicit, the better.
Figure 7.5 displays the four major components
that are used to describe how programs deliver their
services.
Box 7.1 displays a concise example of how the
logic of Figure 7.5 is actually carried out within an
evidence-based family support program. Included are:
• Program’s goal
• Mission statement
• Three of the program’s objectives (with
literary support)
• Workers’ sample activities to meet program
objectives
Evidence-Based Programs
The knowledge we need to evaluate our programs
is generally derived from your social work courses.
There are many evidence-based interventions, or programs, in use today. All of them have been evaluated,
to various degrees. Some have been evaluated in a
rigorous manner—some less so. Some are very effective (e.g., Incredible Years) and some are downright
dreadful (e.g., Scared Straight). The point is, however,
that they all have been evaluated and have provided
evidence of their degree of effectiveness. Go to the
following websites to get a flavor of what social work
programs are about and how they have been evaluated
to be labeled “evidence based:”
• The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention’s Model Programs Guide
http://www.ojjdp.gov/mpg
• National Registry of Evidence-Based
Programs and Practices
http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Part II: Designing Programs
Program
Goal and Mission
Statement
Program Objectives
(including measurements)
Ca
Le se
ve
l
Se
r
vic
eC
on
ce
pt
ua
liz
at
ion
Pr
og
Le ram
ve
l
148
Practice Objectives
Practice Activities
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Figure 7.5: How a program’s services are conceptualized from the case level to the program level.
• Center for the Study and Prevention of
Violence
http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints
• Center for the Study of Social Policy
http://www.cssp.org
• Promising Practices Network on Children,
Families, and Communities
http://www.promisingpractices.net/
programs.asp
• Social Programs That Work
http://evidencebasedprograms.org
• Social Development Research Group
http://www.sdrg.org/rhcsummary.asp#6
• The Campbell Collaboration: C2-Ripe
Library
http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/
selected_presentations/index.php
• The Cochrane Library
http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/
index.html
• National Prevention Dropout Center
http://www.dropoutprevention.org
• What Works Clearinghouse
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc
• Performance Well
http://www.performwell.org
• Center for AIDS Prevention Studies
(CAPS)
http://caps.ucsf.edu
• Positive Behavior Supports and
Interventions
http://www.pbisworld.com
• Expectant and Parenting Youth in Foster
Care: A Resource Guide 2014
http://www.cssp.org/reform/child-welfare/
pregnant-and-parenting-youth/Expectantand-Parenting-Youth-in-Foster-Care_AResource-Guide.pdf
Selecting an Evidence-Based Program
As you can see from that preceding websites,
there are hundreds of evidenced-based social work
programs that you can implement within your agency.
We suggest that all agencies should consider implementing evidence-based programs whenever possible.
The following are 23 criteria that you need to consider
when selecting one to implement within your local
community’s social service delivery system:
Program match
1. How well do the program’s goals and
objectives reflect what your agency hopes
to achieve?
2. How well do the program’s goals match
those of your intended participants?
3. Is the program of sufficient length and
intensity (i.e., “strong enough”) to be
effective with your particular group of
participants?
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 7: The Program
149
BOX 7.1 EXAMPLE OF AN EVIDENCE-BASED FAMILY SUPPORT INTERVENTION (FROM FIGURE 7.5)
Program Goal
The goal of the Family Support Program is to help children
who are at risk for out-of-home placement due to physical
abuse (current social problem to be tackled) by providing
intensive home-based services (means by which the change
is supposed to be brought about) that will strengthen
the interpersonal functioning (desired state) of all family
members (client population to be served)
Mission Statement
This program strives to provide a variety of support services
to families and children in need while also maintaining their
rights, their safety, and their human dignity.
Program Objectives
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
1. Increase positive social support for parents by the end of
the fourth week after the start of the intervention.
• Literary Support: A lack of positive social support has
been repeatedly linked to higher risk for child abuse.
Studies show that parents with greater social support
and less stress report more pleasure in their parenting
roles.
• Sample of Activities: Refer to support groups;
evaluate criteria for positive support; introduce to
community services; reconnect clients with friends
and family.
• Measuring Instrument: Social Support Scale.
2. Increase problem-solving skills for family members
by the end of the eighth week after the start of the
intervention.
4. Are your potential participants willing
and able to make the time commitment
required by the program?
5. Has the program demonstrated effectiveness
with a target population similar to yours?
6. To what extent might you need to adapt
this program to fit the needs of your local
community? How might such adaptations
affect the effectiveness of the program?
7. Does the program allow for adaptation?
8. How well does the program complement
current programming both in your organization and in your local community?
• Literary Support: Problem-solving is a tool for
breaking difficult dilemmas into manageable
pieces. Enhancing individuals’ skills in
systematically addressing problems increases the
likelihood that they will successfully tackle new
problems as they arise. Increasing problem-solving
skills for parents and children equips family
members to handle current problems, anticipate
and prevent future ones, and advance their social
functioning.
• Sample of Activities: Teach steps to
problem-solving; role play problem-solving
scenarios; use supportive counseling.
• Measuring Instrument: The Problem-Solving
Inventory.
3. Increase parents’ use of noncorporal child management
strategies by the end of the intervention.
• Literary Support: Research studies suggest that
deficiency in parenting skills is associated with higher
recurrence of abuse. Many parents who abuse their
children have a limited repertoire of ways to discipline
their children.
• Sample of Activities: Teach noncorporal discipline
strategies; inform parents about the criminal
implications of child abuse; assess parenting
strengths; and provide reading material about
behavior management.
• Measuring Instrument: Checklist of Discipline
Strategies.
Program quality
9. Has this program been shown to be
effective? What is the quality of this
evidence?
10. Is the level of evidence sufficient for your
organization?
11. Is the program listed on any respected
evidence‐based program registries? What
rating has it received on those registries?
12. For what audiences has the program been
found to work?
13. Is there information available about
what adaptations are acceptable if you
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
150
Part II: Designing Programs
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
do not implement this program exactly
as designed? Is adaptation assistance
available from the program’s developer?
14. What is the extent and quality of training
offered by the program’s developers?
15. Do the program’s designers offer
technical assistance? Is there a charge for
this assistance?
16. What is the opinion and experience of
others who have used the program?
Organizational resources
17. What are the training, curriculum, and
implementation costs of the program?
18. Can your organization afford to implement
this program now and in the long term?
19. Do you have staff capable of
implementing this program? Do they
have the qualifications recommended (or
required) to facilitate the program?
20. Would your staff be enthusiastic about a
program of this kind, and are they willing
to make the necessary time commitment?
21. Can this program be implemented in the
time available?
22. What’s the likelihood that this program
will be sustained in the future?
23. Are your stakeholders supportive of your
implementation of this program?
WRITING PROGRAM GOALS
A program goal has much in common with an agency
goal, which was discussed previously:
• Like an agency goal, a program goal must
also be compatible with the agency’s mission
statement as well as the agency goal and at
least one agency objective. Program goals
must logically flow from the agency as they
are announcements of expected outcomes
dealing with the social problem that the
program is attempting to prevent, eradicate,
or ameliorate.
• Like an agency goal, a program goal is not
intended to be measurable; it simply provides
a programmatic direction for the program to
follow.
• A program goal must also possess four major
characteristics:
1. It must identify a current social
problem area.
2. It must include a specific target population
within which the problem resides.
3. It must include the desired future state for
this population.
4. It must state how it plans to achieve the
desired state.
• In addition to the aforementioned four major
criteria for writing program goals, there are
seven additional minor criteria:
5. Easily understood—write it so the
rationale for the goal is apparent.
6. Declarative statement—provide a complete
sentence that describes a goal’s intended
outcome.
7. Positive terms—frame the goal’s outcomes
in positive terms.
8. Concise—get the complete idea of your
goal across as simply and briefly as
possible while leaving out unnecessary
detail.
9. Jargon-free—use language that most
“non–social work people” are likely to
understand.
10. Short—use as few words as possible.
11. Avoid the use of double negatives.
In sum, a program goal reflects the intention
of social workers within the program. For example,
workers in a program may expect that they will
“enable adolescents with developmental disabilities
to lead full and productive lives.” The program goal
phrase of “full and productive lives,” however, can
mean different things to different people.
Some may believe that a full and productive life
cannot be lived without integration into the community; they may, therefore, want to work toward placing these youth in the mainstream school system,
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 7: The Program
enrolling them in community activities, and finally
returning them to their parental homes, with a view
to making them self-sufficient in adult life. Others
may believe that a full and productive life for these
adolescents means the security of institutional teaching and care and the companionship of children with
similar needs. Still others may believe that institutional care combined with community contact is the
best compromise.
Program goal statements are meant to be sufficiently elusive to allow for changes in service delivery approach or clientele over time. Another reason
that goals have intangible qualities is because we want
enough flexibility in our programs to adjust program
conceptualization and operation as needed. Indeed,
by establishing a program design, we begin the process of crafting a theory of client change. By evaluating the program, we test the program’s theory—its
plan for creating client change. Much more will be
said about this in the next chapter.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Preparing for Unintended Consequences
Working toward a program’s goal may result in a
number of unintended results that emerge in the
immediate environment that surrounds the program.
For example, a group home for adolescents with
developmental disabilities may strive to enable residents to achieve self-sufficiency in a safe and supportive environment. This is the intended result, or goal.
Incidentally, however, the very presence of the group
home may produce organized resistance from local
neighbors—a negative unintended result.
The resistance may draw the attention of the
media, which in turn draws a sympathetic response
from the general public about the difficulties associated with finding a suitable location for homes caring
for youth with special needs—a positive unintended
result.
On occasion, the unintended result can thwart
progress toward the program’s goal; that is, youth
with developmental disabilities would not feel safe or
supported if neighbors act in unkind or unsupportive
ways. This condition would almost certainly hamper
the youths’ ability to achieve self-sufficiency in the
community.
151
PROGRAM GOALS VERSUS
AGENCY GOALS
Perhaps the group home mentioned earlier is run by
an agency that has a number of other homes for adolescents with developmental disabilities (see Figure
7.6). It’s unlikely that all of the children in these
homes will be capable of self-sufficiency as adults;
some may have reached their full potential when they
have learned to feed or bathe themselves.
The goal of self-sufficiency will, therefore, not
be appropriate for the agency as a whole, although it
might do very well for Group Home X, which serves
children who function at higher levels. The agency’s
goal must be broader to encompass a wider range of
situations—and because it’s broader, it will probably
be more vague.
To begin, the agency may decide that its goal
is “to enable adolescents with developmental disabilities to reach their full potential” as outlined in
Figure 7.6:
• Group Home X, one of the programs within
the agency, can then interpret “full potential”
to mean self-sufficiency and can formulate a
program goal based on this interpretation.
• Group Home Y, another program within the
agency serving children who function at lower
levels, may decide that it can realistically do no
more than provide a caring environment for
the children and emotional support for their
families. It may translate this decision into
another program goal: “To enable adolescents
with developmental disabilities to experience
security and happiness.”
• Group Home Z, a third program within
the agency, may set as its program goal
“To enable adolescents with developmental
disabilities to acquire the social and
vocational skills necessary for satisfying and
productive lives.”
In short, Figure 7.6 illustrates the relationship
among the individual goal of each of the three homes
to the single goal of the agency. Note how logical
and consistent the goals of the three programs are
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
152
Part II: Designing Programs
Agency Goal
To enable adolescents with
developmental disabilities to
reach their full potential
Program Z's Goal
Program X's Goal
To enable adolescents with
developmental disabilities to
become self-sufficient adults
Program Y's Goal
To enable adolescents with
developmental disabilities to
experience security and
happiness
To enable adolescents with
developmental disabilities to
acquire the social and
vocational skills necessary
for satisfying and productive
lives
Figure 7.6: Organizational chart of an agency with three highly related programs.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
with the agency’s single overall goal. This example
illustrates three key points about the character of a
program goal:
• A program goal simplifies the reason for the
program to exist and provides direction for
its workers.
• Program goals of different but related
programs within the same agency may differ,
but they must all be linked to the agency’s
overall goal. They must all reflect both their
individual purpose and the purpose of the
agency of which they are a part.
• Program goals are not measurable. Consider
the individual goals of the three group homes
in Figure 7.6; none of them are measurable in
their present form.
Concepts such as happiness, security, selfsufficiency, and full potential mean different things
to different people and cannot be measured until
they have been clearly defined. Many social work
goals are phrased in this way, putting forth more of
an elusive intent than a definite, definable, measurable purpose. Nor is this a flaw; it’s simply what a
goal is, a statement of an intended result that must
be clarified before it can be measured. As we will see
next, program goals are clarified by the objectives
they formulate.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
A program’s objectives are derived from its goal. As
you will see shortly, program objectives are measurable indicators of the program’s goal; they articulate
the specific client outcomes that the program wishes
to achieve; stated clearly and precisely, they make it
possible to tell to what degree the program’s results
have been achieved.
All program objectives must be client-centered;
they must be formulated to help a client in relation to
the social problem articulated by the program’s goal.
Programs often are designed to change client systems
in three nonmutually exclusive areas:
• Knowledge
• Affects
• Behaviors
Knowledge-Based Objectives
Knowledge-based program objectives are commonly
found within educational programs, where the aim
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 7: The Program
is to increase the client’s knowledge in some specific
area. The words “to increase knowledge” are critical here: They imply that the recipient of the education will have learned something, for example, “to
increase teenage mother’s knowledge about the stages
of child development between birth and 2 years.” The
hoped-for increase in knowledge can then be measured by assessing the mother’s knowledge levels
before and after the program. The program objective
is achieved when it can be demonstrated (via measurement) that learning has occurred.
153
is that a change in attitude or knowledge will lead to a
change in behavior.
The social worker might assume that adolescents
who know more about the effects of drugs will use or
abuse them less, that seniors who know more about
available community resources will use them more
often, or that citizens that have more positive feelings
toward each other will be less tolerant of prejudice and
discrimination. Sometimes these assumptions are valid;
sometimes they are not. In any case, when behaviorally
based objectives are used, the program must verify that
the desired behavior change has actually occurred.
Affect-Based Objectives
Affect-based program objectives focus on changing either feelings about oneself or awareness about
another person or thing. For example, a common
affect-based program objective in social work is
to raise a client’s self-esteem, or interventions are
designed to decrease feelings of isolation, increase
marital satisfaction, and decrease feelings of depression. In addition, feelings or attitudes toward other
people or things are the focus of many social work
programs.
WRITING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Whether program objectives are directed at knowledge levels, affects, or behaviors, they have to be
SMART ones too; that is, they have to be Specific,
Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time phased.
All evidence-based social work programs cannot exist
without SMART program objectives.
S
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
All program objectives are derived from its
single goal.
To give just a few examples, programs may try to
change negative views toward people of color, homosexuality, or gender roles. “Affects” here includes attitudes because attitudes are a way of looking at the
world. It’s important to realize that, although particular attitudes may be connected to certain behaviors,
they are two separate constructs.
Specific
T
M
Time-phased
Measurable
SMART
objectives
Behaviorally Based Objectives
Very often, a program objective is established to
change the behavior of a person or group: for example,
to reduce drug abuse among adolescents, to increase
the use of community resources by seniors, or to
reduce the number of hate crimes in a community.
Sometimes knowledge or affect objectives are used as
a means to this end. In other words, the expectation
R
A
Realistic
Achievable
Specific (S)
In addition to being meaningful and logically linked to
the program’s goal (to be discussed shortly), program
objectives must be specific. They must be complete and
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
154
Part II: Designing Programs
clear in their wording. Following are two columns.
The left column contains active verbs that your program objective can start out with. The column on the
right contains examples of possible types of program
objectives you could be trying to achieve.
Examples of Active
Verbs
Examples of Measureable Program
Objectives
• Increase
• Social skills
• Decrease
• Feeling of depression
• Maintain
• Feelings of loneliness
• Obtain
• Attitudes toward authority
• Improve
• Aggressiveness
• Access
• Self-esteem levels
You need to mix and match to form appropriate objectives. For example, you could write the following:
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
• Increase self-esteem levels
• Decrease feelings of loneliness
Now that we know how to make a program objective specific, we turn to its measurability, the second
quality required of a SMART program objective.
Simply put, just ask the question, “Is the objective
measurable?” If it can’t be measured then it cannot
be a program objective. As we know by now, the purpose of measurement is to gather data. A measure is
usually thought of as a number: an amount of money
in dollars, a numerical rating representing a level of
intensity, or scores on simple self-administered standardized measuring instruments.
is to define a perceived change, in terms of either
numbers or clear words.
A measurement might show, for example, that
the assertiveness of a woman who has been previously abused has increased by 5 points on a standardized measuring instrument (a program
objective), or that a woman’s feelings of safety in her
neighborhood have increased by 45 points (another
program objective).
Learn more about how to
measure program objectives in
Tools L and M in the Evaluation
Toolkit.
If the hoped-for change cannot be measured,
then it’s not a SMART program objective—it’s missing the “M.” Tools L and M present ways of measuring program objectives, but, for the time being,
we turn to the third quality of a SMART program
objective: achievability.
Achievable (A)
Not only must a program objective be specific and
measureable, it must be achievable as well. Objectives
should be achievable within a given time frame and
with available current program resources and constraints. There is nothing worse than creating an
unrealistic program objective that cannot be realistically reached by the client group it was written for.
This unfortunately happens way more times than
we wish to acknowledge. Just ask and answer the
question, “Can the program’s objective be reached
given: (1) the clients’ presenting problems, (2) the program’s current overall resources, (3) the skill level of
the workers, and (4) the amount of time the intervention is suppose to take?”
Realistic (R)
Measurable (M)
The purpose of setting a program objective is to bring
focus to the desired change, which, if obtained, will
contribute to the obtainment of the program’s goal.
One of the main purposes of making a measurement
In addition to being specific, measurable, and achievable, program objectives must also be realistic.
Having realistic program objectives ties in heavily with having achievable ones (mentioned earlier). A program objective is realistic when it bears a
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 7: The Program
sensible relationship to the longer term result to be
achieved—the program goal.
If a program’s goal is to promote self-sufficiency
of teenagers living on the street, for example, improving their ability to balance a monthly budget may be a
realistic program objective; however, increasing their
ability to recite the dates of the reigns of English monarchs is not, because it bears no relation to the program’s goal of self-sufficiency.
The point here—and a point that will be stressed
over and over in this text—is that an effective
evidence-based program must demonstrate realistic
and meaningful linkages among its overall goal (its
reason for being) and its programs’ objectives.
Time Phased (T)
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Program objectives need to provide a time frame
indicating when the objective will be measured or a
time by which the objective will be met. Box 7.2 presents how the three program objectives in our Family
Support Program illustrated in Box 7.1 were measured with SMART objectives. Notice that the three
program objectives indirectly measure the program’s
goal; that is, the goal is achieved by the success of the
three program’s objectives.
INDICATORS
An indicator is a measurable gauge that shows (or
indicates) the progress made toward achieving a
SMART program objective. Some indicators include
participation rates, income levels, poverty rates, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, community norms, policies,
health status, and incidence and prevalence rates. In
the simplest of terms, indicators ultimately are used to
measure your program objectives.
Sometimes these program objectives are called
dependent variables, outcome variables, or criterion
variables. The most important thing to remember is
that your indicators must be based off your program’s
logic model (to be discussed shortly). A program
objective can be measured with only one indicator,
such as the following:
Program Objective
155
Single Indicator
Client obtains
more stable
housing
A. Percentage of clients
who move to a
transitional shelter,
long-term housing,
rehabilitative setting, or
the home of a friend or
family member.
Increase
self-esteem
A. Hudson’s Index of
Self-Esteem (see Figure
L.1 in Tool L)
And at other times, a program objective can be
measured with more than one indicator, such as the
following:
Program Objective
Multiple Indicators
Clients accesses
needed services
A. Percentage of clients
who agree to a
recovery/treatment
service plan by the end
of their 30th day of
shelter at that site.
B. Percentage of clients
who, as a result of their
service plan, connected
with supportive
services within 30 days
of the start of case
management.
PRACTICE OBJECTIVES
Program objectives can be thought of as formal statements of a declaration of desired change for all clients
served by a program. In contrast, practice objectives
refer to the personal objectives of an individual client,
whether that client is a community, couple, group,
individual, or institution. Practice objectives are
also commonly referred to as treatment objectives,
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
BOX 7.2 GRID FOR SMART PROGRAM OBJECTIVES (FROM BOX 7.1)
SPECIFIC
MEASURABLE
ACHIEVABLE
REALISTIC
TIME PHASED
Program objectives
It says
exactly
what you
are going to
do. It can’t
be too broad
or vague.
There is a way of
measuring the
objective. It must
be able to produce
indicators.
The program objective can
be actually achieved with
your given resources and
constraints.
The program
objective is directly
related to your
program’s goal.
The objective
must have a
date for its
achievement.
To increase positive
social support for
parents by the end
of the fourth week
after the start of
the intervention
This
program
objective
is very
specific. It is
not vague.
This objective can
produce a number of
indicators. We have
chosen two:
(1) client logs, and
(2) The Provision
of Social Relations
Scale.
This program objective
can be easily achieved
by the end of the first
four weeks after the
intervention starts given
our resources and the
skill levels of the social
workers.
This program
objective is directly
related to the
program’s goal, which
is to support family
units where children
are at risk for out-ofhome placement
due to problems with
physical abuse.
“By the end of the
fourth week after
the intervention
starts” is very
specific in
reference to time
frames.
To increase
problem-solving
skills for family
members by the
end of the eighth
week after the start
of the intervention
This
program
objective
is very
specific. It is
not vague.
This objective can
produce a number
of indicators.
We have chosen
one: The Problem
Solving Inventory.
This program objective
can be easily achieved by
the end of the eighth week
after the intervention
starts given our resources
and the skill levels of the
social workers. We also
believe that the clients
have the motivation and
capacity for the desired
change to occur.
This program
objective is directly
related to the
program’s goal, which
is to support family
units where children
are at risk for out-ofhome placement
due to problems with
physical abuse.
“By the end of the
eighth week after
the intervention
starts” is very
specific in
reference to time
frames.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
BOX 7.2 CONTINUED
To increase
parent’s use of
noncorporal child
management
strategies by
the end of the
intervention
This
program
objective
is very
specific. It is
not vague.
This objective can
produce a number
of indicators.
We have chosen
two: (1) Goal
Attainment Scaling
and (2) Checklist
of Discipline
Strategies.
This program objective
can be easily achieved by
the end of the intervention
given our resources and
the skill levels of the social
workers. We also believe
that the clients have the
motivation and capacity
for the desired change to
occur.
This program
objective is directly
related to the
program’s goal, which
is to support family
units where children
are at risk for out-ofhome placement
due to problems with
physical abuse.
“By the end of the
intervention” is
very specific in
reference to time
frames.
158
Part II: Designing Programs
individual objectives, therapeutic objectives, client
objectives, client goals, and client target problems.
All practice objectives formulated by the social
worker and the client must be logically related to the
program’s objectives, which are linked to the program’s goal. In other words, all practice objectives for
all clients must be delineated in such a way that they
are logically linked to one or more of the program’s
objectives. If not, then it’s unlikely that the clients’
needs will be met by the program.
If a social worker formulates a practice objective
with a client that does not logically link to one or more
of the program’s objectives, the social worker may be
doing some good for the client but without program
sanction or support. In fact, why would a program
hire a social worker to do something the worker was
not employed to do?
At the risk of sounding redundant, a program is
always evaluated on its program objectives. Thus we
must fully understand that it’s these objectives that
we must strive to attain—all of our “practice” efforts
must be directly linked to them.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Example: Bob’s Self-Sufficiency
Let’s put the concept of a practice objective into concrete terms. Following is a simple diagram of how
three practice objectives, if met, lead to increased life
skills, which in turn leads to self-sufficiency. Is the
diagram logical to you? If so, why? If not, why not?
These three interrelated practice objectives for
Bob demonstrate a definite link with the program’s
objective, which in turn is linked to the program’s
goal. It should be evident by now that defining a
practice objective is a matter of stating what is to be
changed. This provides an indication of the client’s
current state, or where the client is. Unfortunately,
knowing this is not the same thing as knowing where
one wants to go. Sometimes the destination is apparent, but in other cases it may be much less clear.
PRACTICE ACTIVITIES
So far we have focused on the kinds of goals and objectives that social workers hope to achieve as a result
of their work. The question now arises: What is that
work? What do social workers do in order to help clients achieve the program’s objectives such as obtaining knowledge (e.g., knowing how to make nutritional
meals), feelings (feeling less anxious), or behaviors
(reduce the number of truancies per school year)?
The question remains: What practice activities do
social workers engage in to meet a program’s objectives?
The answer, of course, is that they do many different
things. They show films, facilitate group discussions,
hold therapy sessions, teach classes, and conduct individual interviews. They attend staff meetings, do paperwork, consult with colleagues, and advocate for clients.
The important point about all such activities
is that they are undertaken to move clients forward
on one or more of the program’s objectives. All of
evidence-based programs have SMART program
objectives where each objective has practice activities
associated with it.
A social worker who teaches a class on nutrition,
for example, hopes that class participants will learn
certain specific facts about nutrition. If this learning is to take place, the facts to be learned must be
included in the material presented. In other words,
our practice activities must be directly related to our
client’s practice objectives which are directly related
to our program’s objectives. It’s critically important
that social workers engage in practice activities that
have the best chance to create positive client change.
Defining practice activities is an essential ingredient to understanding what interventions work.
The list of practice activities is endless and dynamic
in that workers can add, drop, and modify them to
suit the needs of individual clients. Reviewing a list of
practice activities with stakeholder groups gives them
Three Pracitice Objectives for Bob
1. Increase personal self-management skills
Program Objective
2. Increase general social skills
Increase life skills
3. Increase drug resistance skills
Program Goal
Become selfsufficient adults
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 7: The Program
Social worker engages in
practice activities
in order to meet...
the client's
practice
objective(s)
in order to meet...
an idea of the nature of client service delivery offered
by the program. Above is a diagram that presents the
preceding discussion in graphic form.
LOGIC MODELS
Your program must have a logic model if it’s to have
any creditability. As you briefly saw in Chapter 3
and will see in depth in the following chapter, logic
models are tools that help people physically see the
interrelations among the various components of your
program. A logic model is nothing more than a concept map that visually describes the logic of how your
program is supposed to work.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Positions Your Program for Success
The W. K. Kellogg Foundation (2004) suggests that use
of the logic model is an effective way to ensure a program’s success. This would be a good time to review
Figures 3.2 and 3.3 in Chapter 3. Using a logic model
throughout the design and implementation of your
program helps organize and systematize your program
planning, management, and evaluation functions:
• In Program Design and Planning, a logic
model serves as a planning tool to develop
program strategy and enhance your ability
to clearly explain and illustrate program
concepts and approach for key stakeholders,
including funders. Logic models can help
craft structure and organization for program
design and build in self-evaluation based on
shared understanding of what is to take place.
During the planning phase, developing a
logic model requires stakeholders to examine
the program's
objective(s)
in order to meet...
159
the program's
goal.
best-practice research and practitioner
experience in light of the strategies and
activities selected to achieve results.
• In Program Implementation, a logic model
forms the core for a focused management
plan that helps you identify and collect
the data needed to monitor and improve
programming. Using the logic model during
program implementation and management
requires you to focus energies on achieving
and documenting results. Logic models
help you to consider and prioritize the
program aspects most critical for tracking
and reporting and make adjustments as
necessary.
• For Program Evaluation and Strategic
Reporting, a logic model presents program
information and progress toward goals in
ways that inform, advocate for a particular
program approach, and teach program
stakeholders.
We all know the importance of reporting results
to funders and to community stakeholders alike.
Communication is a key component of a program’s
success and sustainability. Logic models can help
strategic marketing efforts in three primary ways:
1. Describing programs in language clear
and specific enough to be understood and
evaluated.
2. Focusing attention and resources on
priority program operations and key
results for the purposes of learning and
program improvement.
3. Developing targeted communication and
marketing strategies.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
160
Part II: Designing Programs
Simple and Straightforward Pictures
A picture is worth a thousand words. The point of
developing a logic model is to come up with a relatively
simple image that reflects how and why your program
will work. Doing this as a group brings the power of
consensus and group examination of values and beliefs
about change processes and program results.
Reflect Group Process and Shared Understanding
A logic model developed by all of a program’s stakeholders produces a useful tool and refines the program’s concepts and plans during the process. We
recommend that a logic model be developed collaboratively in an inclusive, collegial process that engages
as many key stakeholders as possible.
Change Over Time
SUMMARY
This chapter briefly discussed what a social work
agency is all about and how programs fit within them.
It touched on the fundamentals of evidence-based
programs and presented a few criteria for selecting
one out of the many that exist. We discussed how to
construct program goals, objectives, indicators, practice objectives, and practice activities. The chapter
ended with a brief rational of why evidence-based
programs need to have logic models which is explored
in-depth in the following chapter.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Like programs, logic models change over time. Thus
as a program grows and develops, so does its logic
model. A program logic model is merely a snapshot of a program at one point in time. It’s a work
in progress—a working draft—that can be refined as
your program develops.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Study Questions
Chapter
7
The goal of this chapter is to provide you with a beginning knowledge base for you to feel comfortable in answering the
below questions. AFTER you have read the chapter, indicate how comfortable you feel you are in answering each
of the following questions on a 5-point scale where
1
Very
uncomfortable
2
Somewhat
uncomfortable
3
Neutral
4
Somewhat
comfortable
5
Very
comfortable
If you rated any question between 1–3, reread the section of the chapter where the information for the question is
found. If you still feel that you’re uncomfortable in answering the question, then talk with your instructor and/or your
classmates for more clarification.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Questions
Degree of comfort?
(Circle one number)
1
Discuss how mission statements are used within agencies.
1 2 3 4 5
2
Discuss how goals are used within agencies.
1 2 3 4 5
3
Discuss the differences between an agency’s mission statement and its goal.
Provide a social work example throughout your discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
4
List and then discuss the four requirements of an agency’s goal. Provide an example
of one using your field placement (or work) setting.
1 2 3 4 5
5
What’s an agency? What’s a program? Discuss the differences between the two?
1 2 3 4 5
6
List and then discuss the four themes that you can use in naming social work
programs. Rename the program that you are housed within in reference to your field
(or work) setting using the criteria presented in the book.
1 2 3 4 5
7
What are evidence-based programs? Select one from the websites presented in the
book and discuss what the program is all about and how it was evaluated to become
“evidence-based.”
1 2 3 4 5
8
Discuss each one of the 23 criteria that need to be addressed when you select an
evidence-based program to implement within your community.
1 2 3 4 5
9
List and then discuss the 11 criteria that need to be considered when writing a
program goal.
1 2 3 4 5
Discuss the differences between an agency’s goal and a program’s goal.
1 2 3 4 5
10
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
continued
Study Questions for Chapter
7
Continued
What are program objectives? Provide a social work example throughout your
discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
12
What are knowledge-based objectives? Provide a social work example throughout
your discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
13
What are affect-based objectives? Provide a social work example throughout your
discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
14
What are behaviourally based objectives? Provide a social work example throughout
your discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
15
What are SMART objectives? Provide a social work example throughout your
discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
16
What are indicators of a program objective? Provide a social work example
throughout your discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
17
What are practice objectives? Provide a social work example throughout your
discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
18
What are practice activities? Provide a social work example throughout your
discussion.
1 2 3 4 5
19
What are logic models? Why are they useful to social work programs.?
1 2 3 4 5
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
11
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter
7
Assessing Your Self-Efficacy
AFTER you have read this chapter AND have completed all of the study questions, indicate how knowledgeable you feel you
are for each of the following concepts on a 5-point scale where
1
Not knowledgeable
at all
2
Somewhat
unknowledgeable
3
Neutral
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Concepts
4
Somewhat
knowledgeable
5
Very
knowledgeable
Knowledge Level?
(Circle one number)
1
The differences between agencies and programs
1 2 3 4 5
2
Agency and program mission statements
1 2 3 4 5
3
Agency and program goals
1 2 3 4 5
4
Requirements for agency and program goals
1 2 3 4 5
5
Constructing program names
1 2 3 4 5
6
Designing social work programs
1 2 3 4 5
7
Evidence-based programs
1 2 3 4 5
8
Criteria for selecting evidence-based programs
1 2 3 4 5
9
Writing program goals
1 2 3 4 5
10
Writing program objectives
1 2 3 4 5
11
Selecting indicators for program objectives
1 2 3 4 5
12
Formulating practice objectives
1 2 3 4 5
13
Formulating practice activities
1 2 3 4 5
14
Logic models
1 2 3 4 5
Add up your scores (minimum = 14, maximum = 70)
A
A–
B+
B
B–
Your total score =
66–70 = Professional evaluator in the making
63–65 = Senior evaluator
59–62 = Junior evaluator
56–58 = Assistant evaluator
14–55 = Reread the chapter and redo the study questions
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
CHAPTER OUTLINE
MODELS AND MODELING
Nonlinear Program Logic Models
Concept Maps
Hidden Assumptions and Dose
Two Types of Models: One Logic
Examples
BUILDING A LOGIC MODEL
From Strategy to Activities
LOGIC MODELS AND EVALUATION DESIGN
Action Steps for a Program Logic Model
Limitations
Creating Your Program Logic Model
Models Begin With Results
Logic Models and Effectiveness
SUMMARY
BASIC PROGRAM LOGIC MODELS
Assumptions Matter
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Key Elements of Program Logic Models
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
8
If you don't know where you are going,
any road will get you there.
Chapter
~ Lewis Carroll
THEORY OF CHANGE AND
PROGRAM LOGIC MODELS
LISA WYATT KNOWLTON AND CYNTHIA C. PHILLIPS
L
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
ogic models were introduced in Chapter 3
when we discussed how they can be used to
describe your social work program—Step 2 of
the six-step process of doing an evaluation. They were
then briefly discussed in the previous chapter in relation to how they can be used in actually designing a
social service program.
Given what you already know about logic models
from your previous readings, this chapter discusses
them at a much more advanced level. In fact, this
chapter presents two types of models that can be used
in your modeling activities:
• Theory of Change Models. These are
conceptual; that is, they are simply a general
graphical representation of how you believe
change will occur within your program. They
are done before a program logic model is
constructed.
• Program Logic Models. These are
operational; that is, they are based off of
your theory of change model. As depicted
in Figures 3.2 and 3.3 in Chapter 3, they
detail the resources, planned activities,
outputs, and outcomes over time that
reflect your program’s intended goal.
In an ideal world, they are constructed
after a theory of change model is
completed.
MODELS AND MODELING
Regardless of type—theory of change or program
logic—good models are used to,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
explain an idea
resolve a challenge
assesses progress
clarify complex relationships among a
program’s elements or parts
organize information
display thinking
develop common language among
stakeholders
offer highly participatory learning
opportunities
document and emphasize explicit client and
program outcomes
clarify knowledge about what works and why
identify important variables to measure
and enable more effective use of evaluation
resources
provide a credible reporting framework
lead to a program’s improved design,
planning, and management
Concept Maps
Models are concept maps that we all carry around
in our minds about how the world does (or should)
165
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
166
Part II: Designing Programs
work. They are tools we can use to convey a scheme,
program, or project in a brief, clear visual format.
They describe our planned actions and the expected
results from our actions. A model is a snapshot of an
individual’s or group’s current thinking about how
their social work program will work.
Modeling is also a technique that encourages
the iterative development of a program. More specifically it creates a safe space for a program’s stakeholders to start a debate, generate ideas, and support
deliberations. More important, it allows us to think
more clearly about specific relationships between and
among variables. Models are a single, coherent logic
that reflects a consistent thread that connects your
program’s overall design, implementation, and eventual evaluation. This thread of logic is critical to your
program’s effectiveness.
Modeling allows careful consideration of the
relationship between what you actually do as a social
worker (your day-to-day activities) and the results you
obtain from your activities (outcomes). When tackled
by a team—or a small group of stakeholders for that
matter—models can be improved by engaging the
knowledge and experience of others. The best models
are socially constructed in a shared experience that
is facilitated. The shared understanding and meaning
they produce among social workers are valuable and
enable success in subsequent steps of an evaluation’s
implementation.
Moreover, models are also used to calibrate
alignment between the program’s “big picture” and
its various component parts. They can easily illustrate
parts of a program or its whole system.
Two Types of Models: One Logic
As previously stated, there are two types of models:
theory of change and program logic. They only differ
by their level of detail and use. Nevertheless, they are
both based on logic:
• A theory of change model is a very basic
general representation of how you believe
your planned change will occur that will lead
to your intended results.
• A program logic model details the resources,
planned activities, outputs, and their
outcomes over time that reflect the program’s
intended results.
The level of detail and features distinguish theory
of change models from program logic models. The
two types of models and their relative features are
highlighted in Table 8.1.
On one hand, the two models are different
from one another in relation to time frame, level of
detail, number of elements, display, and focus. On
the other hand, they are alike because they share the
same research, theory, practice, and/or literature.
Essentially, the two types are simply different views
of the same logic that have a shared origin. The two
model also differ in purposes:
• Theory of change models display an idea or
program in its simplest form using limited
information. These models offer a chance to
test plausibility. They are the “elevator speech”
or “cocktail-napkin outline” of an idea or
project.
• Program logic models, on the other hand,
vary in detail but offer additional information
that assists in a program’s design, planning,
strategy development, monitoring, and
evaluation. Program logic models support
a display that can be tested for feasibility.
They are the proposal version of a social work
program because they have fleshed out in
detail—from a theory of change model—the
resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and
other elements of interest to those creating
and/or using the model.
Examples
The following two examples briefly explain the general concepts and terms related to theory of change
models and program logic models. Although we show
one of each type of model, it’s important to keep in
mind that these are only two examples from a much
broader continuum of possibilities. There are many
ways to express or display ideas and level of detail.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Chapter 8: Theory of Change and Program Logic Models
167
Table 8.1: Features of Model Types.
Features
Theory of Change
Time frame
No time
Time bound
Level of detail
Low
High
Elements
Few (“do + get”)
Many
Primary display
Graphics
Graphics + text
Focus
Generic
Targets + specified results
Theory of Change Model Example
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Program Logic
Theory of change models are the critical foundation for all social work programs. Often these models
exist as part of an internal mental framework that is
“dormant” or undisclosed. They can also imply considerable knowledge, experience, research, and practice. The evidence base for theory of change models
typically is not made explicit.
Figure 8.1 shows a simple theory of change
model for a community leadership program aptly
titled “Community Leadership Program.” Read from
left to right, it illustrates that the program contains
two strategies: an academy leadership curriculum
(Strategy 1) and an academy leadership experience
opportunity (Strategy 2).
These two strategies, when combined together
and successfully implemented, will then lead to
“more and better” community leaders, which in turn
will lead to better community development. In short,
the two strategies within the Community Leadership
Program, when successfully implemented, leads to
positive results.
Program Logic Model Example
Like theory of change models, program logic
models are also visual methods of presenting an idea.
And, like theory of change models, they are simply
concept maps as mentioned in Chapter 3. They offer
a way to describe and share an understanding of relationships (or connections) among elements necessary
to operate your social work program. Logic models
describe a bounded program: both what is planned
(the doing) and what results are expected (the getting). They provide a clear road map to a specified
end, with the end always being the outcomes and the
ultimate impact of the program.
Common synonyms for logic models include
concept maps, idea maps, frameworks, rich pictures,
action, results or strategy maps, and mental models. Program logic models delineate—from start to
finish—a specified program effort. For example, a
program logic model for our Community Leadership
Program (based on the theory of change model presented in Figure 8.1) would include the specified
resources, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact:
• Resources (or inputs) are what are needed to
ensure the program can operate as planned.
For example, money to pay your tuition is
needed before you can enroll in your social
work program, along with a host of other
resources you will need.
• Activities are the tactical actions that occur
within the program such as events, various
types of services, workshops, lectures,
publications, and the like. Together, activities
make up your program’s overall design—it’s
the intervention package. This is where the
rubber hits the road. For example, one of the
activities of your social work program is the
courses you take. This is the “guts” of your
social work program.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
168
Part II: Designing Programs
Strategies
Results
Academy
Leadership
Curriculum
“More and
Better”
Community
Leaders
Community
development
Academy
Leadership
Experiences
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Figure 8.1: Theory of change model for the Community Leadership Program.
• Outputs are descriptive indicators of what the
specific activities generate. For example, this
could simply be the number of students who
graduate each year after they complete the
activities (i.e., courses).
• Outcomes are changes in our clients’
awareness, knowledge levels, skills, and/or
behaviors. The impact reflects changes over a
longer period. For example, this could simply
be the number of students who found social
work jobs after graduating or the degree of
your effectiveness as a social worker.
Figure 8.2 displays a simple program logic model
for our Community Leadership Program shown as a
theory of change model in Figure 8.1.
The program logic model illustrated in Figure
8.2 suggests that the program’s desired results include
more and better community leaders, which in turn
will lead to better community development efforts.
It implies the leadership development agenda is
about resolution of community challenges and that,
if resolved, will contribute to better community
development.
To “read” this model, first note on the far
right-hand column (column 6) the intended impact
(ultimate aim) of the program: community development. Then move to the far left-hand column (column 1), where resources (or inputs) essential for the
program to operate are listed. As you should know
by now, program logic models employ an “if–then”
sequences among their elements.
When applied to the elements in each column in
Figure 8.2, it reads,
• IF we have these resources (column 1),
• THEN we can provide these activities
(column 2).
• IF we accomplish these activities (column 2),
• THEN we can produce these outputs
(column 3).
• IF we have these outputs (column 3),
• THEN we will secure these short-term
outcomes (column 4).
• and so on.
Box 8.1 illustrates another version of how this
“if-then” logic can be used.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Outcomes
Resources
Activities
Outputs
Short Term
Intermediate/Long Term
Impact
Graduates use
knowledge and
skills obtained
through the
program to
strengthen
the community
Community
development
Curriculum
and materials
Faculty
Content
Participants
Leadership
Curriculum
Participant
description
Completion
rate
Host and
facility
Processes
Marketing/
communication
campaign
Leadership
Experiences
Participant
satisfaction
Sponsors ($)
Figure 8.2: Program logic model for the Community Leadership Program (from Figure 8.1).
New leadership
attitudes,
knowledge, skills,
and behaviors
Increased
community
awareness and
action bias
Better Leaders
170
Part II: Designing Programs
BOX 8.1 USING “IF-THEN” STATEMENTS IN DEVELOPING LOGIC MODELS
IF
a certain set of resources (such as staff, equipment, materials) are available,
THEN the program can provide a certain set of activities or services to participants.
IF
participants receive these services,
THEN they will experience specific changes in their knowledge, attitudes, or skills.
IF individuals change their knowledge, attitudes, or skills,
THEN they will change their behavior and usual practice.
IF enough participants change their behavior and practice,
THEN the program may have a broader impact on the families or friends of participants or on the community as a whole.
Thus a school-based alcohol prevention program could have the following theory:
Social worker provide
alcohol prevention training
to youth
Youth garin
knowledge of
alcohol avoidance
strategies
Youth practice
alcohol avoidance
strategies
Youth reduce
alcohol initiation and
use
As a result of the reduced alcohol use of individual youth, alcohol problems in schools will decline.
The program logic model depicted in Figure 8.2 is
just one very simple representation of how a program
might be designed. Many other variations of this example also exist that would still be logical and plausible.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
LOGIC MODELS AND
EVALUATION DESIGN
A clear and coherent program logic model provides
great assistance during an evaluation’s design. It points
out the key features and shows the relationships that
may or may not need to be evaluated. At this level, evaluation questions are the foundation for an evaluation’s
design. If we apply this to our Community Leadership
Program, for example, it’s more than appropriate to
focus on our program’s intended results.
As illustrated in Box 2.1, a summative evaluation
question could be: What difference did our program
make in the community’s development? Perhaps a
place to begin is in determining the contribution the
program made to the actual generation of more and
better community leaders.
In this example, an evaluation could consider
both changes in the awareness, knowledge, skills,
and behavior of the program’s participants as well
as the impact they had on community development.
Stakeholders might also want to know about the content of the two activities (i.e., leadership curriculum,
leadership experiences) and quality of training. They
might be curious about implementation fidelity and
adaptation too. Figure 8.3 demonstrates a program
logic model with typical evaluation questions.
This program logic model represented by Figure
8.3 is serving as a concept map to guide the evaluation
of the program. The five key evaluation questions are
contained at the bottom of their respective columns
in Figure 8.3. Key questions for our Community
Leadership Program include:
1. Is the program doing the right things?
(column 1)
2. Is the program doing things right? (column 3)
3. What difference has the program made
among participants? (column 4)
4. What difference has the program made
across the community? (columns 5 and 6)
5. What are the ways community needs can
and should be addressed by the program?
(columns 3–6)
Positioning questions on the logic model identifies where the data might be found to address any
given inquiry:
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Grinnell, Richard M., et al. Program Evaluation for Social Workers : Foundations of Evidence-Based Programs, Oxford University Press, Incorporated, 2015. ProQuest
Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/capella/detail.action?docID=4083282.
Created from capella on 2018-07-25 05:21:31.
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
Outcomes
Resources
Activities
Outputs
Short Term
Participant
description
New leadership
attitudes,
knowledge, skills
and behaviors
Intermediate/Long Term
Impact
Graduates use
knowledge and
skills obtained
through the
program to
strengthen
the community
Community
development
Curriculum
and materials
Faculty
Content
Participants
Leadership
Curriculum
Completion
rate
Host and
facility
Processes
Marketing/
communication
campaign
Leadership
Experiences
Sponsors ($)
1
Increased
community
awareness and
action bias
Participant
satisfaction
Better Leaders
2
3
Is the program doing
things right?
4
What difference has the program What difference has the program
made among participants?
made across the community?
Is the program doing
the right things?
5
What are the ways that community
needs can and should be
addressed by the program?
Figure 8.3: Program evaluation model for the Community Leadership Program (from Figure 8.2).
172
Part II: Designing Programs
Copyright © 2015. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. All rights reserved.
• Question 1 “tests” the logic constructed
during the planning phase of the program.
This question requires thoughtful
connections to be drawn across activity
accomplishment, implementation
fidelity, and the attainment of desired
outcomes/impact. It addresses the overall
effectiveness of the selected activities and
the related action in achieving the desired
results.
• Question 2 examines implementation fidelity/
variance as well as the scope, sequence,
penetration, and quality of activities.
• Questions 3 and 4 focus on the extent to
which outcomes and impact have been
achieved.
• Question 5, like Question 1, should span
the whole model to surface program
improvement needs. Questions 1 and 5
are more reflective but are essential to a
program’s improved effectiveness.
These evaluation questions can be very helpful
in the initial design and development of the program,
as they help to aim the program’s intervention(s). The
next step is establishing indicators. Models also help
us to guide the conversation and exploration needed
to determine outcome indicators (see previous chapter), or the measures of progress, for any given social
work program.
Limitations
It’s important to note that the proper reference,
“logic model,” in no way guarantees that the model
is, in fact, logical. While many models do demonstrate some modicum of logic, however, a logical
representation does not always equal plausibility,
feasibility, or success. There’s some danger in seeing
a graphic display on paper and considering it “true.”
This notion of omnipotence can stem from a worker’s limited domain knowledge, vested interests, and
lack of perspective. Typically, models do not take
unintended...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment