Senior Recovery Program is now offering a professional workshop series for area professionals. The workshops will start in January with the objective of sharing important information about chemical dependency among older adults, and CEUs are available.
To learn more, please visit the workshop website at: http://www.seniorrecoverymn.org/Workshops.html
As you may know, Stella and Kirsten will be making presentations at the American Evaluation Association (AEA) 2010 conference this Saturday. ACET just posted two PowerPoint presentations on AEA’s website in preparation for the conference.
Multipaper Session #798: Evaluating a Child-Welfare Demonstration Program: Evolution, Considerations, and Lessons Learned
Multipaper Session #763: The Impact of Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) on Student Academic Preparedness
The presentations posted in the AEA eLibrary system are open to the public, so please feel free to check it out! To see all presentations posted for the AEA conference, please click here: http://comm.eval.org/EVAL/EVAL/Resources/LibraryDocuments/Default.aspx?LibraryKey=1eff4fd7-afa0-42e1-b275-f65881b7489b
If you have any questions or would like more information, please don’t hesitate to leave a comment or contact us!
Each year the American Evaluation Association (AEA) holds an annual conference at which evaluators from around the country gather to discuss and reflect on evaluations. A large portion of the conference is devoted to evaluators sharing their knowledge with others through poster presentations, round-tables, and paper presentations. And being a presenter at AEA’s conference is a competitive process: Evaluators submit short briefs of their proposed topic which are reviewed and rated by AEA members.
Recently ACET staff learned that two of their proposals were accepted for the November, 2010 conference in San Antonio. Kirsten will be presenting a paper on the evaluation of a Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) grant currently implemented by the Minnesota Office of Higher Education. The presentation will emphasize the initial findings of the impact of GEAR UP on student academic success, review evaluation successes and challenges, and describe lessons learned. Stella will also co-present a paper on Incarnation Family Connections, a child welfare demonstration program implemented by The Wayside House. This presentation will summarize findings from the first six months of the program, the evolution of the evaluation design, considerations made in selecting the final design, and lessons learned.
In March, Heather and Kirsten wrote about their experience in the “Grant Writing Boot Camp” and touched briefly on SMART goals. This post will provide a little more insight into developing goals that meet the criterion of being “SMART.”
SMART stands for: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound. Let’s review each term one at a time.
Let’s make up an imaginary program and work through creating a SMART goal our fake program: Forever Homes, our hypothetical agency, helps dogs in need of homes find permanent (“forever”) homes.
Specific. To say a goal is specific indicates that the goal itself is not too broadly identified. For Forever Homes, a goal could be stated as “rescue dogs.” While this is a goal of the program, it is not specific. What does it mean to “rescue” a dog? Do we mean rescue all dogs from human ownership and free them to the wild (hopefully not!)?
A more specific goal might be something like “Find forever homes for homeless dogs in Minneapolis.” This goal has been improved in a number of ways: We have identified a specific target (homeless dogs); limited our region for homeless dogs (Minneapolis); and defined “rescue” (find forever homes).
Measurable. A measurable goal is simply one that can be measured. By making a goal specific, we are well on our way to having a measurable goal. It is much easier to measure the specific goal, “find forever homes for homeless dogs in Minneapolis” rather than “rescue dogs.” We can measure specifically how many dogs that have been rescued Minneapolis have been placed in forever homes.
Attainable. An attainable goal is one that is able to be reached. Our current goal, “find forever homes for homeless dogs in Minneapolis,” is specific and measurable, but do we really expect to find forever homes for all homeless dogs in Minneapolis? So, to make our goal more attainable, let’s update it to “find forever homes for 90% of the homeless dogs in Minneapolis identified by Forever Homes.” That’s a goal that might be attainable, as opposed to 100% of dogs.
Realistic. This is very similar to an attainable goal; however, just because our goal is attainable does not mean it is realistic. Finding a forever home for 90% of dogs, although possible, might be far beyond what the organization could expect to realistically achieve. Perhaps a more realistic goal is “find forever homes for 75% of the homeless dogs in Minneapolis identified by Forever Homes.”
Time-bound. The most recent version of our goal may have already sprung the question “wait, what if a homeless dog is found a day before the data is reported for evaluation? Should we really count that dog as ‘not having a forever home’ because the dog has only had one day to find a home?” This is one example of why one must make SMART goals time-bound. Let’s revise our goal again: “find forever homes within 6 months for 75% of the homeless dogs in Minneapolis identified by Forever Homes.” One needs to ask here if the time-bound condition is realistic.
We began with “rescue dogs” and ended with “find forever homes within 6 months for 75% of the homeless dogs in Minneapolis identified by Forever Homes.” There is a drastic difference between the two and it should be obvious through the discussion that the second goal achieves SMART status.
Have any insight into SMART goal development you’d like to share? Any follow-up questions? Please comment below.
The National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections (NRCPFC) offers a webcast every week which may be a valuable resource for anyone working, involved, or interested in child welfare. You need only a computer with audio (or a computer and telephone) to participate.
Each webcast is free to the public, but registration for each event is mandatory. There are also materials to view which are available for download on the event web page.
Below is information for the next webcast:
Wednesday, April 7, 1:00 PM – 2:00 PM EDT: Visit Coaching: Building on Family Strengths to Meet Children’s Needs
“Visits between children in foster care and their families often do not build on family strengths or help them to demonstrate that they can meet their children’s safety and developmental needs. Visits can alienate parents, children, and foster parents, and the parent’s grief, anger, and preoccupation with complying with court-ordered treatment often obscures their children’s needs. Visit coaching is an innovative approach that can replace parenting classes and office-based visits with hands-on guidance for families in meeting their children’s needs. Visit coaches, who may be caseworkers or a variety of other trained individuals, help parents take charge of visits and demonstrate more responsiveness to each child. Join the National Resource Center for Permanency and Family Connections (NRCPFC) Executive Director, Gerald P. Mallon, and NRCPFC Consultant, Marty Beyer for this webcast. They will discuss how the innovative approach of Visit Coaching can build on family strengths to meet children’s needs.”
To register for the webcast, visit: http://event.netbriefings.com/event/nrcfcpp/Live/nrcpfc20/.
If interested in learning more about NRCPFC, you can subscribe to their weekly newsletter at http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/update-subscription.html or check out their website at http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/.
Cassie
In September Kirsten and I attended a “Grant Writing Boot CampTM” facilitated by Dr. Bev Browning and co-sponsored by the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota Organization on Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention, and Parenting (MOAPPP). As evaluators, we don’t write a lot of grants, however sometimes we do help our clients write the evaluation sections of their proposals and both Kirsten and I have interest in building our grant writing skills. In our capacity at ACET, however, we are always on the look-out for funding opportunities that might be of interest to the organizations we work with, so it was really helpful that Dr. Browning covered popular and less utilized resources used to identify potential funders and gave insightful tips on grant writing in the workshop. Participants practiced writing grant applications including powerful statement of need, goal statements, and SMART objectives.
Dr. Browning spent a fair amount of time focusing on the importance of writing “great” goal statements (i.e., the end one strives to obtain) and the difference between the three types of objectives (i.e., major milestone or checkpoint on your rout to reaching a goal): outcome, process, and impact.
Dr. Browning’s suggestions for writing “great” goal statements include:
Here is an example of a good goal statement: The Earthquake Relief Organization will design a new program to educate government officials on building code standards to prevent future injuries and casualties from building collapse.
In her book Grant Writing for Dummies, Dr. Browning encourages grant writers to provide objectives for each goal (and each year) for which they are requesting funds, and outlines the differences between the three types of objectives.
Outcome objectives show what the project will accomplish with the planned activities and should include terms such as increase and decrease. Dr. Browning suggests thinking SMART when writing outcome objectives: Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, and Time-bound.
Here is an example of a SMART outcome objective: Participants who have been in the program for one year or more will have maintained safe and stable housing for at least 3 months.
Process objectives are the activities needed to reach your goals and meet or exceed your measurable outcomes, or SMART objectives. Process objectives should include the actual, chronological activities that need to occur from the time you received grant funding until the monies have been spent. Dr. Browning suggests the best way to present your process objectives is in a table format (e.g., timeline chart). Process objectives should not include measurable terms (e.g., increase or decrease), they should, however, be written quantifiably.
Here is an example of a process objective: Six new staff will be trained to administer family counseling to program participants in the first year.
Impact objectives demonstrate the achievement of the goal of the project or program and show the reader there has been an impact or change on the target population. They are generally used when grant writers are asked to write about benefits to participants. There are no common words in impact objectives, but they should include signs of significant change.
Here is an example of an impact objective: Prevents family disruptions by providing intensive residential family services to women and children experiencing substance abuse.
I hope this information has been helpful. Do any of you have grant writing tips you would like to share with us?
Heather
ACET offered its second community workshop, “The Results Are In,” on February 23rd and would like to extend a word of thanks to all who attended. We highly appreciated the excellent attention, questions, and devotion to the material. The workshop, facilitated by ACET’s Evaluation Specialist, Joseph Curiel, shared a bit of knowledge on common types of survey data and how various types of data are related to analysis options. The workshop also provided participants with various options for graphically reporting data and several tips and tricks for making your visual displays both easy to understand and visually appealing.
The workshop was the second in a series of free community workshops ACET plans to facilitate in order to help organizations build their evaluation capacity. Be sure to subscribe to our blog to keep updated on future events and email Heather Scholz (heather@acetinc.com) if you are interested in attending future workshops or have suggestions for future workshops topics.
StrengthsFinder 2.0
By Tom Rath
A friend of mine referred me to the StrengthsFinder 2.0. The idea behind this resource is that individuals spend more time in their professional careers focusing on addressing their weaknesses rather than enhancing their strengths; however, by focusing on their natural strengths instead, people have higher job satisfaction and increased quality of life. In an effort to help people discover their strengths Gallup studied human strengths for 40 years. The latest version, StrengthsFinder 2.0 includes 34 of the world’s most common talents and how they can be applied to a wide variety of roles. The 34 themes represent Gallups best attempt at creating a common language or classification on talents. (Of course there are hundreds of additional themes but they wanted to keep the list manageable so that it can be easily applied.)
The resource works like this: First, take the online assessment. (www.strengthsfinder.com) It’s a timed assessment; you have 20 seconds to respond to each question. The assessment takes about 30 minutes to complete. The analysis of your assessment will reveal your top five talents. The book offers descriptions of each theme, ideas for action, and suggestions for working with others who have the same theme.
For those of you that are interested my top themes are: Learner, Responsibility, Input, Empathy, and Arranger.
Heather
Last August Heather and Kirsten offered a free workshop on survey design, which covered how to write useful items for your survey and common pitfalls to avoid. The feedback on the workshop was very positive and all attendees seemed to benefit from the material. ACET also offered a complementary review of an attendees’ existing survey as a means of following-up for the event.
We are pleased to announce that our second workshop has been scheduled! The Results are In: Analyzing and Reporting Survey Data for Stakeholders will cover common options for analysis of your survey data, guide you through the analysis process, and offer you suggestions for sharing your information with stakeholders in a way that is useful and meaningful.
The Results are In: Analyzing and Reporting Survey Data for Stakeholders will be held on:
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010 from 1:00 to 3:00 pm at the
Neighborhood House Wellstone Center
179 Robie Street East, Saint Paul, MN 55107
Wellstone Center phone: (651) 789-2542
Seats are limited to this FREE event so please RSVP to Heather Scholz via email at heather@acetinc.com or via phone at the number below by Thursday, February 18th, 2010. For more information about ACET please visit our website at www.acetinc.com or contact our office at 952-922-1811.
One of my favorite online resources is Andy Goodman’s “free range thinking.” Andy is a nationally-recognized communications specialist and he is passionate about helping people to better communicate with their audience(s). His monthly newsletter reflects that passion.
What I find most appealing about free range thinking is that each newsletter is short and has one (and only one) major point and the information can be utilized immediately. For example, in the October 2008 newsletter, Andy and a guest contributor, Eric Swartz, discuss how to create a unique tagline. And in the April 2009 newsletter, Andy describes how to develop a story bank, a collection of stories about an agency to help spread their message.
Anyone can subscribe to free range thinking and receive the newsletter for free.
I hope you find this resource helpful!
Kirsten