Logic Model

Logic model Brief history of evaluation and the logic Model Scriven (1991) would argue that evaluation has been around for many years, and is only now recognised as a discipline. He would go further and say it is like a knowledge which has been around for a decade before we were discussing its use, nature and logic. It is essentially different from science in its methods and thought. He would argue it is only recently we have appreciated its value as a discipline we still have a long way to go. Despite the current popularity of logic Models they date back to the 1970s. The first publication that used the term â€Å"logic model† was quoted as Evaluation: Promise and Performance by Joseph S. Wholey (1979). Suchman (1967) is similar to Bennett's hierarchy, The Seven Levels of Evidence (1975, 1976), well-known in Cooperative Extension circles, was an early predecessor of today's logic model. The backgrounds and footprints of logic model thinking can be seen in the private sector, public sector and non-profit sector. Private sector- The private sector has experienced total quality management (TQM) and performance measurement movements. TQM is an on-going process that involves management and staff to meet the requirements of clients and other stakeholders while keeping costs to a minimum. Moullin (2002) Public sector- The Government Performance targets with health and social care which asked for outcomes which were linked to funding. E. g. Accident and Emergency waiting times, more recently the push for released prisoners who are managed within the community by agencies will receive funding if they do not reoffend within a set time frame. This is similar to the payment by results concept within the health service. This saw the influx of program managers being employed within the public sector. We also have performance indicators within the Local Authority which measure assessment time frames and timely reviews of LAC. Non-profit sector- The non-profit sector is concerned with improving programs to produce outcomes. This has resulted from the new commissioning guide lines where contracts dictate agreed outcomes linked to funding. I have chosen the logic model for evaluation and am going to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. A logic model is an evaluation tool that provides a way of illustrating a program visually so it can be understood by all stake holders. It can be presented in table format which can be presented in easy read language thus can involve clients with disabilities. It shows planned activities and results expected from it and there is no right or wrong way of developing the model. It provides a picture or diagram of what is going to be done and what the program evaluation is going to be. The Logic model has three approaches to evaluation: It is a client centred (bottom up approach) approach it starts with the desired effects or results and works up to outlining how we will get the results. It is best used when evaluating an existing activity. Within this research it will look at the existing processes of weather the voice of the child is heard within the Looked after Children Review (LAC)? Top down approach starting with the pre-planned program activities and strategies that can evaluate a program in its developmental phase, within the process of LAC review where the voice of the child is a concept that the government is wanting in place. The Independent Reviewing Manager is responsible for ensuring the voice of the child is heard. The most important strength of the Logic Model is that both approaches can be used at the same time. Benefits and limitations of the Logic Model It is a usefully program planning and evaluation tool. It is simple yet complex it can be time consuming as you seek to involve all stake holders. It may not always address weather we are doing the right thing and get caught up in creating the model then weather the program is the right thing to do. It mat stifle creativity and spontaneity as it has clear phases to follow. It is easier for the stake holders to understand the overall purpose of the program and it ensures the inputs and outputs correspond. It identifies key questions to be evaluated. This may not always cover all the outcomes that may happen as a result of the evaluation, e. g. he question asked may result in other unexpected outcomes which may be overlooked. Taylor et al (2008) This model clearly outlines the intended key elements to all stake holders, staff, clients, policy makers and the agencies. The model often focuses on positive change sadly this may not be the result as change is not always positive. The model can reveal the break in steps in any part of the progra m activities, revealing the limitation where a great deal of patience is required. It may simplify the complicated process of cause and attribution where they may be many issues that influence process and outcomes. Scriven puts in very simple terms â€Å"The relation between mosquitos and mosquito bites† (Scriven, 1991: 77) it is important to realise the logic model only makes a statement of intent not reality. Taylor et al (2008) Theory under pinning the logic model Empowerment Empowerment is a contested concept which can be defined in many ways depending on peoples understanding and ideas. Adams (2003) According to Wallerstein (1992), states empowerment is a social-action process. It encourages participation of people, organizations, and communities towards the goals of Individual and community control. Towards political efficacy, improved quality of Life and social justice, While Whitmore (1988) feels the concept of Empowerment needs to be more clearly defined; she states that there are some common Underlying assumptions: Individuals are assumed to understand their own needs better than anyone else and therefore should have the power both to define and act upon them. All people possess strengths upon which they can build. Empowerment is a lifelong endeavour. Personal knowledge and experience are effective and useful in managing. McDougall (1997) suggests â€Å"empowerment is not an intervention or a strategy. Rather it is a fundamental way of thinking†. â€Å"Empowerment is not giving people power; people already have plenty of power, in the wealth of their knowledge and motivation, to do their jobs magnificently. We define empowerment as letting this power out† (Blanchard, K 1960). As we can see from some of the definitions of empowerment that the individuals carrying out the evaluation themselves need to be committed to the values of equality and social inclusion otherwise the outcomes may be affected highlighting one of the weakness of the theory and logic model where we can have unexpected outcomes, and influences we may not have anticipated. Participation Participation of children and young people in social work policy and practice has been a fairly new concept. For many years professionals interpretation of children’s feelings, needs and wishes have determined services and influenced research and policy. Franklin et al (2004). It has slowly dawned on professionals over the last 30 years that children and young people need to be involved in decision making and processes. This desire to involve children and young people has only increased since 2000 Oldfield et al (2004). Participation now is central to current government legislation, policy and guidance framework underpinning delivery of public services to children and young people. This thinking has been influenced by social and political changes at national and international levels. Literature Search on Participation It is important to suggest that you cannot have empowerment without participation and participation without empowerment. Alderson (1993) has made us aware through his research the competencies children have in getting involved in decision making, and children and young people have been identified as a group in their own right. Alderson particular focused on children and young people’s ability to discuss and give consent to surgery. Fanklin et al (2004) The emergence of the children’s rights agenda. Children and young people began to gain legal participatory rights in decision- making under the UN convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), it was ratified in the UK in 1991. This focused adults to think about how to involve children and young people in decision â€Å"appropriate to abilities and understanding† Franklin et al (2004:6). Marchant et al (2004:136) would suggest that too often we are focusing on children and young people’s competence to participate rather than on adult’s competence to support children and young people to make decisions and take action. There has been an increasing influence of the consumer; the concept that as consumer’s children and young people are given more power threw legislation and policy to exercise choice and influence over the services they receive. Franklin et al (2004). Sadly majority of LAC have had no choice in coming into care but within the system they should be given choice. The reality of choice is often restricted by resources. My question would be do they really have choice are the consumers? The impact of high profile child protection cases in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which uncovered systematic physical and sexual abuse by staff in children’s homes led to an acknowledgement that â€Å"adults know best† and will act in the interest of children and young people had failed many children. There was a â€Å"culture of collusion, neglect, indifference and silence on the part of staff† Landsdown (2001:3). Children were denied a voice ‘speaking with’, ‘listening to’ and actively involving children and young people would have ensured their protection. Scottish Executive (2004) There is a growing movement of children’s service user and carers, we have seen a development of groups such as the Children’s Rights Alliance for England (2005); the Children’s Society (2006), National Young Carers Initiative and A National Voice, who are working towards transforming the status of children and young people in the UK. Children’s participation in the United Kingdom (UK) has moved a long way. Children and young people can play a crucial role when organisations listen to them in delivering services. Wright et al (2006) Methods There are robust applied reasons to view qualitative evaluation methods as harmonious to quantitative methods. Reichardt et al (1994). There is a wide debateon the two methods. Datta (1994) suggested that the difference in the two models are less apparent in practice then in theory and that often evaluators will use more than one approach due to the complexity of the work they do. Reichardt (1994) The table below tries to show differences between qualitative and quantitative evaluation approaches. For this research we will be using both, questions and narrative approach to allow the stakeholders to express their views. It will be an indicative approach starting with the data and then making sense by looking at the themes that emerge through language, feelings and experience. It is a holistic approach which is empowering as it tries to represent all stake holder’s views as well as evaluators. It is considered a natural way where the research is not looking to lead the stakeholders in any one direction. Miles & Huberman, (1994) it is a holistic approach. Key Differences Between Qualitative and Quantitative Evaluation Approaches| Qualitative EvaluationIs Often Characterized by| Quantitative EvaluationIs Often Characterized by| †¢ Inductive approach to data gathering,interpretation, and reporting†¢ Holistic approach: finding gestalts for theevaluation results†¢ Verstehen: understanding the subjectivelived experiences of program stakeholders(discovering their truths)†¢ Using natural anguage throughout theevaluation process†¢ In-depth, detailed data collection†¢ Use of case studies†¢ The evaluator as the primary measuringinstrument†¢ A naturalistic approach: does not explicitlymanipulate the setting| †¢ Research hypotheses and questions that are tested in the evaluation†¢ Finding patterns that either corroborate ordisconfirm pa rticular hypotheses and answer the evaluation questions†¢ Understanding how social reality, asobserved by the evaluator, corroborates ordisconfirms hypotheses and evaluationquestions†¢ Emphasis on measurement procedures that lend themselves to numerical representations of variables†¢ Representative samples of stakeholder groups†¢ Use sample sizes with sufficient statisticalpower to detect expected outcomes†¢ Measuring instruments that are constructed with a view to making them reliable and valid†¢ Evaluator control and ability to manipulatethe setting, which improves the internalvalidity, the statistical conclusions validity,and the construct validity of the researchdesigns| (Miles & Huberman, 1994) We will be using a purposive sample of stakeholders to interview. The interviews will include 2 social workers, 2 families, 2 young people who have left care, 2 Independent reviewing managers and 2 foster carers. This is because for the research we want to interview people involved in the LAC review as our research is about children and young people going through the process and weather their voice is heard. The table below shows the advantages and disadvantages of sampling methods and why we have chosen purposive sampling. Sampling techniques: Advantages and disadvantage Technique| Descriptions| Advantages| Disadvantages| Simple random| Random sample from whole population| Highly representative if all subjects participate; the ideal| Not possible without complete list of population members; potentially uneconomical to achieve; can be disruptive to isolate members from a group; time-scale may be too long, data/sample could change| Stratified random| Random sample from identifiable groups (strata), subgroups, etc. Can ensure that specific groups are represented, even proportionally, in the sample(s) (e. g. , by gender), by selecting individuals from strata list| More complex, requires greater effort than simple random; strata must be carefully defined| Cluster| Random samples of successive clusters of subjects (e. g. , by institution) until small groups are chosen as units| Possible to select randomly when no single list of population members exists, but local lists do; data collected on groups may avoid introduction of confounding by isolating members| Clusters in a level must be equivalent and some natural ones are not for essential characteristics (e. g. geographic: numbers equal, but unemployment rates differ)| Stage| Combination of cluster (randomly selecting clusters) and random or stratified random sampling of individuals| Can make up probability sample by random at stages and within groups; possible to select random sample when population lists are very localized| Complex, combines limitations of cluster and stratified random sampling| Purposive| Hand-pick subjects on the basis of specific characteristics| Ensures balance of group sizes when multiple groups are t o be selected| Samples are not easily defensible as being representative of populations due to potential subjectivity of researcher| | Select individuals as they come to fill a quota by characteristics proportional to populations| Ensures selection of adequate numbers of subjects with appropriate characteristics| Not possible to prove that the sample is representative of designated population| Snowball| Subjects with desired traits or characteristics give names of further appropriate subjects| Possible to include members of groups where no lists or identifiable clusters even exist (e. g. , drug abusers, criminals)| No way of knowing whether the sample is representative of the population| Volunteer, accidental, convenience| Either asking for volunteers, or the consequence of not all those selected finally participating, or a set of subjects who just happen to be available| Inexpensive way of ensuring sufficient numbers of a study| Can be highly unrepresentative| Black, T. R. (1999:11 8) For this research the narrative approach for interviewing the sample has been chosen. What we mean by the word narrative is important to understand why we are using this approach. The  Oxford Mini Dictionary  defines narrative as ‘a spoken or written account of something’ (Hawker, 2002: 406). Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary  is not specific about the written or spoken, with its ‘an account of any occurrence’ Macdonald, (1972: 876) thereby including the possibility of other types of communication visual, aural, tactile and so on. This wider, inclusive definition is important because it recognizes and allows the use of signing, Braille, and other communications systems/languages. It provides the following through the interviews, locates the person in context describing setting, character and mental summary of events, conflict and outcomes. Mishler (1986) The narrative process will enable collection of data from the sample selected and they will be able to tell their stories this is very important within the LAC population as we have more black children and young people represented in our system. They will be able to tell their story from their cultural perspective Marshall et al (1995). The main advantage of the process is that in the interviews we will be able to find the voice of the participant in the particular time, place and setting in this case the LAC review. Connelly et al (1990) this can also lead to gaining insight into the organisational change which can lead to cultural change. Faber (1998), Boje (1991), Beech (2000) It can also bring insight into decision making through stories and how knowledge is transferred in the organisation. OiConnor, (1997) Darwent,( 2000). We need to also acknowledge the limitations of the narrative approach. We can have researcher bias which can influence the data, the sample may not be credible, sample could have been influenced by other studies they were involved in, and background information may be missing, the analysis of the researcher could be biased, the very presence of the researcher may affect the research and data, the present information may not influence the future. Heisenburg (1927) and building trust with the sample takes time the snapshot view and small sample may impact the outcomes as they may not be representative of the population. Hammersley et al (1983) Hammersley (1990) We will be using semi-structured interview method as it is complementary to using the narrative approach to asking questions, and its strengths and limitations. â€Å"Interviewing is a complex and demanding technique† (Frey and Oishi 1995:02) This researcher sets the environment for the data to be collected. The interviewee has time to share their views but the process relies on the interviewee willing to give an honest answer. Breakwell et al (1950). It allows the interviewer to ask open questions and supplement ones to clarify views, Frey and Oishi (1995). They may not be completely honest and ask elaborate questions back to ascertain exactly what the research is about. (Wimmer and Dominick (1997). The data and validity of the research may well be impacted by these. Breakwell et al (1995)