You will need to read the Chapter on Personal Safety to have the ability to discuss this with ease.
You will need to read the Chapter on Personal Safety to have the ability to discuss this with ease.
For this part of the project, you’re going to continue using the same topic/event that was used in Capstone Part #1 and do a compare-and-contrast case study. It will require you to view your topic from three different angles: locally, nationally, and globally.
Your case study should be written in APA style, have 800 words, and compare and contrast your topic with how it was portrayed from a local, national, and global standpoint.
Summative Assessment: Program Evaluation Plan Proposal [friday
Review the feedback you received from your instructor over the past 8 weeks.
Revise your plan based on your instructor’s feedback, course readings, and independent research.
The final revised Program Evaluation Plan Proposal should be 18-20 pages long, not including references, title page, appendices, and cover page.
The completed plan should include the following sections:
Briefly summarize the proposed evaluation
Program description (Wk 2 Project Program Descriptions assignment)
Program background and history
Program size, locations, organization, etc.
Evaluation needs (What question does the evaluation seek to answer/address?)
Program goals and outcomes (Wk 3 Program Logic Model assignment)
Program logic model
Program model (Wk 4 Evaluation Model/Approach)
Advantages and disadvantages of model/approach
Program standards and indicators (Wk 5 Development of Standards and Indicators)
Indicators used to evaluate program elements
Indicators aligned to organization’s goal/objective(s)
Roles, responsibilities, and influencers of plan
Evaluation design (Wk 6 Program Evaluation Design assignment)
Evaluation questions and their justifications
Evaluation plan matrices
Data collection procedures
List of measure/instrument drafts (just a list, based on Evaluation Measures assignment)
Evaluation management plan (Wk 7 Evaluation Management Plan assignment)
Proposed implementation timetable (Gantt Chart)
Estimated evaluation budget
Full copies of measure drafts
Other, as appropriate
Format your assignment according to APA guidelines.
Cite a minimum of 10 peer-reviewed references.
Compile your final revised Program Evaluation Plan Proposal and completed Change Matrix.
Submit your assignment.
Center for Writing Excellence
Reference and Citation Generator
1.What do you anticipate being the most difficult aspect of evaluation within your field? Apply the information you gained from this course and discuss how you might address that difficulty from the perspective of an evaluator and leader, taking into consideration any accreditation issues.
Write a 250- to 300-word response to the following:
2.Why do you agree or disagree with their post? What in your professional experience supports your assertions?
Review others’ posts and respond to at least one of your course colleagues in 150 words
Select one of these formats:
For this week’s discussion, create a brief presentation addressing the following:
Create a reflective and applied statement describing how the material from Weeks 5-8 has affected your thought processes, development, and professional disposition. This statement should reflect your personal learning process (challenges, moments of discovery, life experiences, and interactions). You may also include questions for the course facilitator regarding material that may still be unclear. Ideally, you will use these reflections throughout the course and the program to document your development as a scholar, practitioner, and leader, and to reflect critically on the changes that occur during this process.
Format any citations and references in your reflective statement according to APA guidelines.
AGENCY IN POLICY TURMOIL
By Samuel H. Taylor, D.S.W.
Exactly one year ago, Dr. Breeze came to San Marcos, a metropolitan suburb of Los Angeles with a population of 60,000 people, to direct the recently established Sam Marcos Community Mental Health Center. Dr. Breeze had previously worked in Philadelphia, where he had acquired a reputation as the innovative, inspiring, and flexible director of Manford University’s Outreach Mental health services Department.
When Dr. Breeze initially interviewed for his position, several board members expressed some reservations about how he would fit in, since he did not wear a tie and seemed almost overconfident. Dr. Sedgwick, the retiring director, calmed the board by saying that, as a young psychoanalyst, he too had been fairly unconventional. The board had to keep in mind that this was no longer the San Marcos Clinic, it was a new mental health center, and it needed new ideas and the dedication of youth. “He will work out,” Dr. Sedgwick reassured them.
Shortly after George Breeze arrived at the San Marcos Community Mental Health Center, he made it clear to the staff that waiting lists, long-term therapy, and supervision were outdated. In the following months, he:
1. urged short-term, crisis-oriented management of cases
2. requested and received permission to establish an advisory board of citizens from the catchment area and another board composed of consumers
3. abolished the supervision system and established a flexible peer-consultation system
4. asked staff members to work evening in order to see families
5. got into an argument with the Chief of Police about how officers were handling youngsters and emotionally ill persons
6. hired paraprofessionals from a human services program of a community college to serve as community aides
7. told the staff that he wanted to know personally about the service and disposition of each case that involved a racial or ethnic minority client because he suspected that staff members were allowing biases to influence case management.
Within six months, the staff in the agency had become deeply divided. Three major groups
had formed and developed leadership. First, some of the original clinic staff members (who had helped Dr. Sedgwick prepare the mental health center application) resented Dr. Breeze’s nontraditional was and felt that they had had no chance to introduce their ideas. They rallied behind Dr. Jones, met privately, and decided they must take their case to other agencies in San Marcos and to local civic leaders and then must present their complaints to the agency board with the support of these other groups and leaders.
The staff hired by Dr. Breeze (young activist professionals and community aides) learned of the strategy and immediately alerted Asian, black, and Chicano groups in San Marcos and rallied behind Dr. Smith, who contacted both the NIMH (the prime federal funder for the center) and the Citizen and Consumer Advisory Boards. They were ready to ask for termination of federal and state funds if Dr. Breeze were fired.
Finally, a number of agency supervisors formed a group behind Dr. Virtue that advocated “responsible.” They were not opposed to all the changes instituted by Dr. Breeze but particularly opposed to those that deprived “professionals” of their rightful positions of authority and prestige within the agency. They wanted restoration of the supervisory system and curtailment of hiring of new careerists.
The issue reached crisis proportions when a patient being cared for by a community aide committed suicide in a most sensational manner. A reporter from the newspaper interviewed a member of the original staff and was told that “this would never have happened if Dr. Sedgwick had been there. Dr. Breeze’s ideas just don’t work.
The board decided to hold a meeting to settle the issue, and they agreed to allow representatives to all sides to present their evidence. They felt that Dr. Breeze had introduced some good programs but also felt that he was unconventional. At this meeting, they hoped to reach a final decision as to whether Dr. Breeze should be fired, retained (but only after placing limits on the reforms he had issued), or given a vote of complete confidence.
“Traditionalists,” then, rallied behind Dr. Jones and wanted to restore the traditional mission of the agency-long-term therapy with white and middle-class clients. ‘Insurgents” supported Dr. Breeze and his various reforms with no qualifications. “Advocates of responsible change” wanted some innovations, but not at the expense of the traditional prerogatives of professionals. The board wished to bring unity to the agency as soon as possible to avoid further adverse publicity as well as possible loss of funds.
Length: At least 4 pages, double spaced, not including the Cover Page or the Reference Page. Please number your pages. Provide a minimum of three (3) scholarly references using APA format.
References must be provided in a separate page. Lack of references will result in lost points.
After reading the Dr. Breeze case:
1. Identify the five stakeholder groups and their positions in regard to the change that Dr. Breeze is initiating in San Marcos Community Mental Health Center*
2. Using a policy lens, provide the historical and policy rationale as to why Dr. Breeze was hired.
3. In your view, which group or groups want Dr. Breeze to be fired, retained, or voted with complete confidence? What is their rationale?
4. What kind of changes did he initiate?
5. What are the reactions of each stakeholder group? Do you think they acted appropriately and why?
6. What side do you take with these groups and why you are taking that position?
7. Identify the main responsibility of each stakeholder group.
8. What do you like about Dr. Breeze and what don’t you like about him? Explain your reasons.
9. Given the changes Dr. Breeze initiated at San Marcos Community Mental Health Center, what would you do if you were Dr. Breeze? Assume that you are strongly taking a position siding with one of these stakeholder groups. Describe your actions.
*In the event you have identified stakeholder group/s that are different from what was decided in class, you will need to provide a rationale for doing so.
in 250‐500 words address the following prompts in four paragraphs:
Do you believe the private security guards should be armed? Should they be trained in defensive tactics? Should private security be able to use identifying information which may be misleading to the public, giving the public the impression that they are law enforcement? Should law enforcement officers be allowed to work for private security when they are off duty? Do these situations provide a false sense of security for the public? Be sure to provide real life examples in your answer and be sure to cite your sources.
Be sure that you are using proper APA format and that you have at least one Peer-Reviewed Article in your research.
This assignment consists of three parts:
(1) Sample Selection
Recommend the steps that should be taken to draw the particular sample described below. Format your response as a procedure.
(2) A Priori Power Analysis
Download the G*Power software provided, and then use the software to submit the following:
a. Calculate the estimated sample size needed when given these factors:
b. Calculate the estimated sample size needed to perform an ANOVA (fixed effects, omnibus, one-way) when given these factors:
(3) Intended Research Sampling Method
Describe the sampling method that would be appropriate for your intended research.
Length: Your paper should be between 5 – 10 pages not including title and reference page. Results of the G* power analysis that will add length to the paper.
References: Include a minimum of five (5) scholarly sources.
We provide custom-written papers to assist students in research, writing and proofreading process. These assignments are for assistance purposes only and students are suggested to use them as guide papers only in order to avoid any sort of law violation of the university or education sector.