Developing a Program Evaluation
A program is a social agency subunit that provides conventional to focus on the clients. On the other hand, an evaluation is a multidimensional approach that addresses questions and issues vital to a practice or a program (Dudley, 2020).
Summary of the program selected
Anger management programs provide intervention for participants who are victims of domestic violence and other types of crimes. It gives participants tools that they need to understand the causes and triggers of their anger. It also provides strategies that can be used in management to lower the chances o0f anger intensifying into violence. Program monitoring is to be used to answer client’s questions of whether they are satisfied with this type of program. Monitoring falls under the implementation stage of evaluation as monitoring is done to know how well clients are adopting the intervention. Stakeholder analysis will involve the process of recognizing the participants who are to participate in the project and aligning them according to their participation levels (Dudley, 2020). Stakeholders that will be involved in the approval of the evaluation will be recognized through analysis whereby key stakeholders will be identified by asking the interests they have in the anger management program. Each stakeholder’s impact and influence will be assessed together with the potential effects the program might have on each stakeholder. Different stakeholders will be involved in several ways regarding the stages of evaluation. It will be from the collection, giving out information, working together, and partnership. Their central role will include strategically planning the interests of the program that will make it a success. My proposed program evaluation is program monitoring. (Sapapthai et al., 2020). The stakeholders might have concerns about conducting the project as they may have limited personnel and financial resources required to complete it. Another concern the stakeholders might have is researchers who lack experience performing the evaluation process (Béné et al., 2015).
Program Evaluation Plan Draft
Purpose of Evaluation
The purpose of using program monitoring is to identify the program’s effectiveness by looking at the , including weaknesses and strengths that may come about when an anger management program is to be implemented. The weaknesses will help identify where gaps are and what is supposed to be done to fill these gaps. It will help recognize methods that can improve the program’s services to ensure outcome effectiveness. Program monitoring will also assist in terms of accountability. When this is done, the integrity and effectiveness of the program will be guaranteed. The use of questionnaires and observations will be used as program monitoring includes the use of questions in exploring whether the intervention to be implemented is in the way that will have been proposed. Observations will involve observing clients to see if they respond well to the intervention (Dudley, 2020).
Questions to be Addressed and Information to be collected
Some of the questions to be addressed about the intervention of the program will include:
1. Is the intervention focused on the population targeted?
The intervention is supposed to concentrate on victims of anger following domestic violence or any other crime they might be involved in and is causing them to be angry every time.
2. Is the intervention designed in a manner in which it can meet the needs that the targeted population needs?
The intervention should be set in a manner in which all the clients with anger issues are to receive help despite their background, tribe, or financial stability.
3. Is the intervention following the proposed and designed methods of intervention?
The intervention should involve giving clients questionnaires to answer whether they are satisfied with the intervention services being offered.
4. Is the intervention achieving its set objectives and goals?
The intervention’s primary goal is to identify the weaknesses and that the program might bring when implemented, so the questions should be able to answer that in the end.
5. Is the intervention cost-effective?
The intervention should be at an affordable cost in which the stakeholders can afford. It should also be at a rate that the clients can easily afford so that all the clients who have anger management issues are not afraid to seek help because they fear the prices (Dudley, 2020).
The information to be collected should be legit in that no client is forced to say anything against their will. All clients should be allowed to participate freely in the process to state whether they are satisfied with the program and, if not, what makes them not to be happy.
I would address the stakeholders’ concerns by clarifying to them why they should use an external stakeholder rather than an internal one to complete the requirements needed for the evaluation. This is because external stakeholders do not need an internal investment as they will not be directly related to the program; the project will only impact them to a small extent. Thus the main stakeholders won’t need to use a lot of money to participate in the project. After all, the program should be nonprofitable since the main aim is offering help more than getting cash and if funded more by the government. Using an external person assures them that the person is qualified as they will be known well. They do not need to worry more as they will have a qualified person working for them. This will address their primary concern as they will use fewer people and money to finish the requirements (Sapapthai et al., 2020).
Béné, C., Frankenberger, T., & Nelson, S. (2015). Design, monitoring and of resilience interventions: conceptual and empirical considerations.
Dudley, J. R. (2020). Social work evaluation: Enhancing what we do. Oxford University Press, USA.
Sapapthai, S., Leelawat, N., Tang, J., Kodaka, A., Chintanapakdee, C., Ino, E., & Watanabe, K. (2020). A Stakeholder analysis approach for area business continuity management: A systematic review. Journal of Disaster Research, 15(5), 588-598.