complete program evaluation discussion

Get perfect grades by consistently using www.assignmentgeeks.org. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

MUST HAVE AT LEAST 2 PEER REVIEWED REFERENCES

Program Evalutaion: Ethical Dilemma

This module taught you that ethical practice during the evaluation process is vital to the reliability of the evaluation that is produced. As in most areas of the helping professions, the ethical principles are not absolute, leading to an evaluator’s careful consideration of the actions he or she takes and the strategies he or she employs.

Tasks:

Using the Argosy University online library resources and the Internet, research and read about the assignment topic. In a minimum of 200 words, respond to the following:

  • Analyze Fiona’s case from Appendix A in your textbook. What are the ethical issues that you believe she is facing?
  • What are the “benefits and costs” from Fiona’s perspectives?
  • What are the “benefits and costs” from the agencies’ perspectives?
  • If you were Fiona, what would be your decision (conduct the evaluation in-house or contract out)? What is your rationale for this decision?
  • APPENDIX

    Appendix A: Fiona‘s Choice: An Ethical Dilemma for a Program Evaluator

    Fiona Barnes did not feel well as the deputy commissioner’s office door closed behind her. She walked back to her office wondering why bad news seems to come on Friday afternoons. Sitting at her desk, she went over the events of the past several days and the decision that lay ahead of her. This was clearly the most difficult situation that she had encountered since her promotion to the position of director of evaluation in the Department of Human Services.
    Fiona‘s predicament had begun the day before, when the new commissioner, Fran Atkin, had called a meeting with
    Fiona and the deputy commissioner. The governor was in a difficult position: In his recent election campaign, he had made potentially conflicting campaign promises. He had promised to reduce taxes and had also promised to maintain existing health and social programs, while balancing the state budget.
    The week before, a loud and lengthy meeting of the commissioners in the state government had resulted in a course of action intended to resolve the issue of conflicting election promises. Fran Atkin had been persuaded by the governor that she should meet with the senior staff in her department, and after the meeting, a major evaluation of the department’s programs would be announced. The evaluation would provide the governor with some post-election breathing space. But the evaluation results were predetermined—they would be used to justify program cuts. In sum, a “compassionate” but substantial reduction in the department’s social programs would be made to ensure the department’s contribution to a balanced budget.
    As the new commissioner, Fran Atkin relied on her deputy commissioner, Elinor Ames. Elinor had been one of several deputies to continue on under the new administration and had been heavily committed to developing and implementing key programs in the department, under the previous administration. Her success in doing that had been a principal reason why she had been promoted to deputy commissioner.
    On Wednesday, the day before the meeting with
    Fiona, Fran Atkin had met with Elinor Ames to explain the decision reached by the governor, downplaying the contentiousness of the discussion. Fran had acknowledged some discomfort with her position, but she believed her department now had a mandate. Proceeding with it was in the public’s interest.
    Elinor was upset with the governor’s decision. She had fought hard over the years to build the programs in question. Now she was being told to dismantle her legacy—programs she believed in that made up a considerable part of her budget and person-year allocations.
    In her meeting with
    Fiona on Friday afternoon, Elinor had filled
    Fiona in on the political rationale for the decision to cut human service programs. She also made clear what
    Fiona had suspected when they had met with the commissioner earlier that week—the outcomes of the evaluation were predetermined: They would show that key programs where substantial resources were tied up were not effective and would be used to justify cuts to the department’s programs.
    Fiona was upset with the commissioner’s intended use of her branch. Elinor, watching
    Fiona‘s reactions closely, had expressed some regret over the situation. After some
    hesitation, she suggested that she and
    Fiona could work on the evaluation together, “to ensure that it meets our needs and is done according to our standards.” After pausing once more, Elinor added, “Of course,
    Fiona, if you do not feel that the branch has the capabilities needed to undertake this project, we can contract it out. I know some good people in this area.”
    Fiona was shown to the door and asked to think about it over the weekend.
    Fiona Barnes took pride in her growing reputation as a competent and serious director of a good evaluation shop. Her people did good work that was viewed as being honest, and they prided themselves on being able to handle any work that came their way. Elinor Ames had appointed
    Fiona to the job, and now this.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW

Writerbay.net

Do you need help with this or a different assignment? We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin/LopesWrite/SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper