QUESTION:
Respectfully agree or disagree with the analysis of the timing of the process evaluation and the proposal for adjustments.
Identify the process evaluation article that you chose and explain why you selected this example.
The process evaluation article that I chose was the cross age peer mentoring program. I chose this process evaluation article as I currently work with youth and have my upcoming field placement at a juvenile correction facility. Seeing if a program like this is effective caught my attention and maybe learn some approached to take with the youth in detention facility. I plan to continue working with the youth and adolescent population after graduation which encouraged the use of this article as well.
Describe the purpose of the evaluation, the informants, the questions asked, and the results of the evaluation.
The purpose of the evaluation was to see if, “young adults who are perceived as having higher likelihood of achieving negative outcomes be trained to become positive socializors to middle school aged youth” (Vil, Angel, 2018). In other words, if older youth can be a role model for the younger youth. The questions asked consisted of if participating in the program contributed to positive world view ideas (Vil, Angel, 2018). Results consisted of high sense of giving back to the community, giving adolescents something to do with less time to get into trouble, and creating a sense of community were reasons adolescents continued in the program that deemed effective in being trained to become a positive social role model for younger aged youth (Vil, Angel, 2018).
Identify the stage of program implementation in which the evaluation was conducted.
The program implementation is at the impact evaluation. The impact evaluation stage is conducted either during or at the end of the program to see how much the program has impacted the adolescent positively and in interview form gather the outcomes from the mentors themselves, the adolescents (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.)).
Consider why the researchers chose to evaluate at that stage of program implementation.
The researcher chose to evaluate at the impact stage of the program to gather just that, the impact the program has as benefiting to participate as a mentor. It had to be in the end to gather the information as the adolescents have gone through extensive training to be a mentor and connect with other mentors before seeing younger adolescents and be deemed appropriate and positive (Vil, Angel, 2018). Impact assesses the program’s effectiveness in achieving that goal (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n. d.)).
What kind of information would they have received if they had conducted the evaluation earlier or later?
If the program would have conducted the evaluation earlier or later then the information they receive would have been focused on if the adolescents understand the program expectations and or focusing on if the program is reaching the right population (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (n. d.)).
If you were to replicate the study, would you adjust it in any way for more optimal results?
I would not adjust it as the training seems appropriate for youth and adolescents to remain receptive and engaged and seems to serve well based on the outcomes.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Types of evaluation Links to an external site.. https://www.cdc.gov/std/program/pupestd/types%20of%20evaluation.pdf
Vil, C. S., & Angel, A. (2018). A study of a cross-age peer mentoring program on educationally disconnected young adults Links to an external site.. Social Work, 63(4), 327-336. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/swy033
