Search

How do responsive evaluators provide input to program planners when competing ethical principles point to different choices of effective feedback? A team of three evaluators used participant observation, individual and focus group interviews, and analysis of documents to provide input on the development and outcome of a summer program for high school youth. The goal of the program was to prepare diverse young people for the democratic promotion of religious liberty in the local communities where they resided in the USA. The program planners all sought to prepare community youth leaders to foster the freedom of religion, but they varied in how they believed this ought to be achieved. Some of their disagreements centered on pedagogy and what curriculum and instructional practices would best accomplish their goals. The ethical dilemmas these disagreements created for the evaluators are explored, using a set of moral theories from the western philosophical tradition. (Contains 1 table.)

An external evaluation documented what occurred in an inaugural summer camp to teach high school students how to preserve religious freedom by learning about and acting on the history and current state of church-state separation and other first amendment issues. Camp designers hoped to promote religious diversity values and civic engagement in youth. An analytic vignette grounded in an inductive analysis of observations, interviews, and document collection represents the competing demands of responsive and critical approaches to evaluation. Balancing obligations to promote the social well-being of society with responsibilities to clients and other stakeholders presents challenges that can be met only by identifying priorities with clients in ongoing dialogue. (Contains 1 figure.)

Describes the University of Georgia's Deans' Forum, a group of approximately 30 faculty members who have engaged in collaborative work on issues of teacher education for over 4 years. Discusses its design, activities, and impact, and elements necessary to sustain it. (EV)

Changes in the field of educational ethnography over the last century and their implications are discussed. Topics include the personalized role of the ethnographer, the use of technology and new media in conducting research, and a shift in subject matter to include varied perspectives.

BACKGROUND In 2005 through 2009, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites to implement a colorectal cancer screening program for uninsured, low-income populations. These 5 sites composed a demonstration project intended to explore the feasibility of establishing a national colorectal cancer screening program through various service delivery models. METHODS A longitudinal, multiple case study was conducted to understand and document program implementation processes. Using metaphor as a qualitative analytic technique, evaluators identified stages of maturation across the programmatic life cycle. RESULTS Analysis rendered a working theory of program development during screening implementation. In early stages, program staff built relationships with CDC and local partners around screening readiness, faced real-world challenges putting program policies into practice, revised initial program designs, and developed new professional skills. Midterm implementation was defined by establishing program cohesiveness and expanding programmatic reach. In later stages of implementation, staff focused on sustainability and formal program closeout, which prompted reflection about personal and programmatic accomplishments. CONCLUSIONS Demonstration sites evolved through common developmental stages during screening implementation. Findings elucidate ways to target technical assistance to more efficiently move programs along their maturation trajectory. In practical terms, the time and cost associated with guiding a program to maturity may be potentially shortened to maximize return on investment for both organizations and clients receiving service benefits. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2926-39. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND In 2005, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funded 5 sites as part of the Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program (CRCSDP) to provide colorectal cancer screening to low-income, uninsured, and underinsured individuals. Funded sites experienced unexpected challenges in recruiting patients for services. METHODS The authors conducted a longitudinal, qualitative case study of all 5 sites to document program implementation, including recruitment. Data were collected during 3 periods over the 4-year program and included interviews, document review, and observations. After coding and analyzing the data, themes were identified and triangulated across the research team. Patterns were confirmed through member checking, further validating the analytic interpretation. RESULTS During early implementation, patient enrollment was low at 4 of the 5 CRCSDP sites. Evaluators found 3 primary challenges to patient recruitment: overreliance on in-reach to National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program patients, difficulty keeping colorectal cancer screening and the program a priority among staff at partnering primary care clinics responsible for patient recruitment, and a lack of public knowledge about the need for colorectal cancer screening among patients. To address these challenges, site staff expanded partnerships with additional primary care networks for greater reach, enhanced technical support to primary care providers to ensure more consistent patient enrollment, and developed tailored outreach and education. CONCLUSIONS Removing financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening was necessary but not sufficient to reach the priority population. To optimize colorectal cancer screening, public health practitioners must work closely with the health care sector to implement evidence-based, comprehensive strategies across individual, environmental, and systems levels of society. Cancer 2013;119(15 suppl):2914-25. © 2013 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]