After reading a few different reports I found this very interesting report. I have always, as many teachers have, been involved with youth and underprivileged youth. My time living on the Elizabeth Metis Settlement in Northern Alberta provided me an eye opening view into some of the issues in this review. I found this topic to be highly relevant and interesting but after my second read through I was not entirely sure it is a program evaluation. A panel review is not what comes to mind when I think of program evaluation but according to some reading“Program evaluation is carefully collecting information about a program or some aspect of a program in order to make necessary decisions about the program” The review seems to follow the work of Michael Scriven. It has the formative evaluation piece that looks not to decide to stop a program but to improve one in place. It looks at goals and roles but the focus is on roles and working for change. It definitely shows the “collaborative or participatory or empowerment evaluation” (Scriven, 27). It does not however seem to focus on the checklist system that often is associated with Scriven. In theory it could be considered goal free as the review panel is not part of the system directly.
This review seems to have been very well thought out. It has a large diversity and excellent consultation with stakeholders. The report is divided into three sections. Section 1 is the Mandate Review and Process.The initial report goes into length about the reasons behind the review and the challenges that they face. This section clearly states the intention and premise. The strength here is a large diversity and people dedicated to making changes.
Section 2 is Child Welfare: Background and Context. This review seems to be well rooted in the current practice and issues of child care. There are some strong statics to fuel the need for change. I was surprised by the 9% per year growth in caseload each year and that 56% of interventions are for neglect. It paints a strong picture of a need for change. Which makes this very successful.
Section 3 is What we Heard: Recommendations and Rationale. This section shows a strong connection to the Rippey transactional format. Each recommendation in this section has a focus area and and a discussion of supporting actions. This section changed my view of the review process. The strength of this section is its great organization and feedback.
Overall this review is very comprehensive, takes political and social factors under consideration while maintaining an understanding of historical context and challenges.The biggest weakness may not be the result of the review. it is actually a side effect of the It is such a large program and requires some very definitive and ideological changes. It clearly states the goals but I feel that achieving that change requires so much work around each of the 12 recommendations outlined. I left this report with a better understanding but felt the task of implementation was massive and complex.
No comments:
Post a Comment