your completed Final Project by reviewing and editing your Assignments to create a cohesive paper. Add an Introduction and Rationale for the study. Your Final Project should be 4–6 pages in length.
Below, you will find an outline of topics that should be addressed in your Final Project. You are not required to exactly follow this outline; however, you must be certain that each component is clearly addressed in your final design.
Although your project for this course is only a design document and not a full report, you will find it useful to review your Learning Resources. Many of the same points and principles apply equally well at the research design stage.
Your Final Project will include the following elements:
- Problem definition and intervention description
- Logic model or logframe
- Development of indicators
- Data collection strategy
- Evaluation design, needs assessment, or formative or summative impact evaluation
- Data analysis strategy
- Stakeholder requirements
*MY PAPER IS ON THE AFTER CARE OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS AFTER INCARCERATION
* I NEED AT LEAST A 135/142 PLEASE. I NEED IT BY 12 MIDNIGHT.
Policy Evaluation on Aftercare of Juvenile Defendants Incarcerated
My evaluation will be about the aftercare of juveniles after they are incarcerated. It will give research methods to collect and analyze data to prove the positive effects of this program and how it has an impact on juvenile offenders. The evaluation will not leave the reader without any unanswered questions and the results will be able to show the program’s effectiveness, show ways to improve the performance or guide resource sharing. A program evaluation is meant to analyze performance measures to assess the achievement of performance objectives. It can also be made to answer a broad spectrum of questions that may come about from the programs to aid in decision-making by program managers and policymakers. The policy evaluation on the aftercare of juvenile defendants that were previously incarcerated, is designed to give juveniles the chance and the proper resources that they need to be successful in the community. When a juvenile offender is incarcerated, they are missing out on their schooling, learning the necessary life skills, and not having the chance to spend much needed time with their families. One upside of this program will give them a push in their educational track, whether it is helping them obtain a high school diploma or a GED. They will be able to get tested to make sure they are in the grade they are supposed to be in. This will boost the number of juveniles that have been incarcerated for this desired program. This will then give the outcome of them being able to get out into the real world and use their degrees and possibly further their education beyond high school. Some relevant evaluation questions that could come about are about their school. How would they be able to ensure that they will have the necessary guidance to follow them through the rest of the educational track? Questions may be raised about what they are going to do once their get their diploma. Program and policy makers can request information about the program performance to make diverse program management. Clarifying the issue is important to determine the requester’s priorities and develop clearly defined researchable questions.
There is the possibility of validity threats, specifically internal threats that can arise when doing an evaluation design. Internal validity refers to the accuracy of the casual claims. This is primarily relevant when casual claims are at issue. This seems to be the most important when evaluations are at issue. Then there is external validity which is the generalizability of research results and this happens when results are applicable to other times and places and the larger population that is of interest.
Langbein, L. (2012). Public program evaluation: A statistical guide (2nd ed). Armonk; NY: ME Sharpe.
United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO). (2012). Designs for assessing program implementation and effectiveness in Designing evaluations: 2012 revision (pp. 31-49). Retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588146.pdf