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