Question

Discuss the basic steps of the program evaluation. Do you believe that the 2016 State of Evaluation Report by Innovation Network appropriately followed all those steps? Were there any additional steps possibly overlooked by the Innovation Network? Defend your argument with examples.

Answer 1

Program evaluation is a systematic method of collecting, analyzing, and using information about to project policies and programs, especially effectiveness and efficiency. In both the public and private sectors, stakeholders often want to know whether the programs they fund, implement, vote, accept or oppose to achieve the planned effect. While program evaluation focuses on this definition, innovation considerations often include the cost of the program for participants, how the program can be improved, whether the program is useful or not, there are better options despite the unintended consequences.

The evaluation process is considered to be a new phenomenon. However, the planned social assessment was recorded as early as 2200 BC. This assessment was particularly relevant in the United States in the 2016, during a major social program involving the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Extraordinary additions are invested in social programs, but the impact of these investments is not yet clear.

Program evaluation can include both quantitative and qualitative methods of social research. People who evaluate programs come from a variety of sources, including sociology, psychology, economics, social work, and public policy. Some universities also have specific training programs to evaluate this program.
For example, in job training programs, some people choose to participate and some do not. Those who participate may differ from those who do not participate in the main way. They may be more determined to find a job or have better resources to support. In fact, these traits may result in job outcomes rather than job training programs.

Incidentally made unreasonable estimates may draw more serious conclusions about causal relationships. Random assignment of people to participate or not to participate in programs reduces or eliminates self-selection bias. In this way, the group of people who participated may be more comparable than those who did not participate.

However, since most applications cannot use random work, the causal relationship cannot be determined. Impact analysis can still provide useful information. For example, the results of a program can be described. Thus, the evaluation may describe that those who participated in the program were more likely to get results than those who did not.

If the program is large and has enough data, statistical analysis can be used to create a reasonable case for the program, showing, for example, that other causes are unlikely.