The evaluator was not intrusive and did not intent to pry on the certain aspects that the respondents preferred to leave unanswered. Despite the respect of this principle however, the overall evaluation program was harmed as some support staff took advantage of it and left out some vital pieces of information. The most relevant example in this sense was the incident during which a nurse was held at gunpoint and robbed during a house call to an elderly citizen in a low income area of the city. The evaluator was informed of the incident, but was also assured that it was resolved and that it would not generate any outcomes for the support program or the evaluation process. The evaluator took this information on faith and out of respect for the staff, he believed it and went on with his activities. However, as it later on turned out, the incident was much more serious than initially believed and efforts supported by the evaluator to addresses the issue sooner could have been pivotal to a more efficient support program.
The principle of general and public welfare was a salient motif in the evaluation process. In other words, the evaluator has always been aware that his efforts must also reflect the impact of the support program onto the nurses, but also onto the entire society. The actual emphasis on this feature was however reduced up to the time the support program was in fact completed. By this moment in time, sufficient information had been collected and the evaluator came across some vital pieces of data that would reveal conflicting stands. The robbery incident is also the key element in this discussion as it represents a threat upon the social well-being. Without being able to come in possession of sufficient data regarding the robbery at the time it occurred, the evaluator's emphasis on general and public welfare was reduced -- this implies the failure to respect the welfare principle due to a lack of access to information. But now, it becomes greater with the emergence of the new data. This status quo throws the evaluator in a dilemma as he is unsure of the actual impact...
He is doing it at this stage, but previous interest was reduced. Then, there is also the matter of a balance between client needs and the needs of other categories of stakeholders. The evaluator believed he respected the principle, but in light of the new information, it may seem that the balance is uneven. All these add up to his current problem.
6. Your responsibility
At this stage, the final outcome of the support program seems of little use to anybody. Throughout its course of six months, the program has undergone some changes that were not known to the evaluator until the completion of the session. The blame of the evaluator could be looked at from two different angles, both given by the need to respect the guiding principles of good evaluators. On the one hand, there is the need to respect people's privacy and to not pry whenever they do not wish to disclose additional information. From this standpoint, the evaluator is not to be blamed. On the other hand, there is the principle of competence, which argues that the evaluator has to thoroughly research the matter. From this standpoint, the evaluator is definitely to blame for the failure to adapt the evaluation of the changes in the program. The principle of general and public well-being is the one that makes the difference and offers the final answer -- the evaluator has to complete his tasks with a constant consideration of social well-being; sadly enough however, I disregarded this feature and I am to be blamed for the lack of adaptation.
7. What to do?
Given this status quo, it is necessary for the evaluator to take the most objective stand and offer his clients his conclusion. Additionally, in his report, he should mention that the findings could be biased and that he recommenced that the evaluation be conducted again due to lack of adequate information in the process. However, the final report should include an analysis of the support program; it would argue that the findings are not optimistic as…
C. Evaluation question(s) and aims. The primary question that will be addressed is to identify whether HCBS program is able to provide service to the target population. The evaluation questions will also be directed to the cost effectiveness of the program. The following evaluation questions are identified: 1. Is the program meet the budget requirements of the 1915 (b)? 2. Has the program generates cost saving? 3. Has the program has been able to
This would also allow students to state their goals, and then compare their goals against their final achievements. Also, as part of the program, students are assessed for placement purposes in their English proficiency. After completing their courses annually, students should have to be assessed once again, to see if their English had showed improvement, based upon their first set of scores. This would reduce the impact of bias
Program Evaluation Integrate data collection methods into the program evaluation plan. The data collection method is seeking to integrate qualitative and quantitative research together. It is developing a program that is effective in helping to support smoking cessation efforts. Qualitative research is used to provide background on the study and proven smoking cessation initiatives. For instance, this portion of the research revealed that any effective program will integrate therapy, support groups and
Program Evaluation The difference between action research and program evaluation might seem rather negligible on the surface, but a basic understanding of how action research differs from more traditional research methods also leads to great clarity in understanding the differences in evaluative methods. Action research is essentially a method of formative evaluation, where the evaluation is an ongoing process embedded in the experimental phases of the research; program evaluation is more
Program Evaluation of a University Theater Program The purpose of the graduate level theater program at Metropolitan University in Manhattan, New York, is to prepare students to make meaningful contributions to the theater industry. This program incorporates a multi-faceted approach to achieve this objective. It has very specific areas of concentration to assist in improving the quality of performances and shows to galvanize the general public to become interested in the
This data would entail two components, a survey completed by the nurses during the course, which asks for input as to whether anything in the curriculum seems outdated. The second component would be an annual audit and fact-check. Finally, the third component would be verifying how the curriculum falls in line with the hospital's master plan. Should the hospital change its overall strategies, those changes should be reflected in