Measuring the Effectiveness of the Forum for Youth Investment Program - Article Example

Measuring the effectiveness of the Forum for Youth Investment Program Purposes of the evaluation The process sought to quantify on the purpose of the program. The Forum for Youth Investment has been linked with the generation of opportunities for the youths. This has been achieved via the refection of the depths of positivity they stand to impact to the pre-engaged programs. The program rests its interest on the potential of having the youthful population benefit from the adopted programs. This is in line with the sustainability of efficiency in these programs. The Forum for Youth Investment seeks to ensure that the programs embraced for the ferrying of the youthful generation to their future aspirations remains well structured to meet this intent. However, the perception on the potential outcome of such initiatives, as well as the prospect of having the projects realize the aforesaid interest needs to be validated. This interest remains best defined via the presentation of a possible avenue upon which the program may be evaluated. A possible path towards the realization of this interest anticipates the consideration of several critical principles. Such statutory guidelines offer an insight on the potential of the program in achieving the considered intent. Programs such as Forum for Youth Investment need to be vetted in order to be allowed to gauge the effectiveness of the initiatives on the ground. They need to express an ultimate potential or capacity of undertaking their principle agenda exponentially. This evaluation seeks to detail on this concern with the hope of presenting a reliable image of the potential of the Forum for Youth Investment. The evaluation hopes to be able to propose methods and measures that may allow for the reflection of the abilities accorded to the program This is deemed to be of essential merit to the initiative developers that sought to use the program for the evaluation of their ideas (Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2009, 16). Additionally, the findings will be of benefit to the youths since they will offer useful information on the available vetting programs. Having the Forum for Youth Investment unevaluated allows for the reduction of its potential. The evaluation design (basic research methods) The design will nest its focus on the principle structure of the program. This will espouse a top-down approach. The evaluation will consider the output of the program. This will form the base upon which to evaluate the adopted procedure and protocols. The evaluation will simply seek to identify on the possibility of achieving the noted result from the adopted items of check. The program has four levels of outcome. They are structured along their anticipated periods of expectation. Among them includes the long term, short term, intermediate and immediate goals. The realization of each of the targets considers both the efficiency and accuracy of the adopted path. The evaluation seeks to identify this concern with respect to the eventual target. The design with thus includes flow charts of measures and outcome. The prospective challenges will be listed. The evaluation design will seek to test the program against each of the challenges in the respective of the proposed avenues of outcome generation (Yohalem & Wilson-Ahlstrom, 2009, 65). The definition of a successful initiative under the Forum for Youth Investment will involve the consideration of the definition adopted by the program. An in-based evaluation will be considered at first due to the prospective role it stands to declare on the program. The program is considered as an essential tool for inviting the participation of external evaluation. This is in regards to the potential it offers to the validity of the program. Upon satisfying the internal concern on the essence of the measurement design, the quest will proceed to list the possible platforms of further evaluation that will be partnered alongside. This includes the distinction of the output nominal since the findings are anticipated to presume that format. Outcome measures As indicated initially, the procedures of outcome quantified via nominal. This is with respect to the potential of the findings that are anticipated to be developed. The research team expects to have the success rates quantified in descriptive nominal. There exists a potential of having a distinct zero progress in some procedures. This implies that the process of quantifying the respective measures of progress may adopt procedures such as ratios. The identification of the appropriate instruments to be deployed while engaging on this path remains on the possibility of potential (Mertens & Wilson, 2012, 112). Instruments The design will consider the input of various tools and instrument towards the realization of its intent. This includes the prospective instruments that will assist in the gathering of the information, as well as the eventual evaluation. Questionnaires are to be considered for the gathering of the information pertaining both the input and the eventual outcome. This will be fortified by the eventual inputs that desired to be integrated in a Single System Research Designs (SSRD). Apparently, the eventual output observed from the program will be evaluated via the aid of the SSRDs. This is in respond to its favourable prerequisites that accredits its implementation (Langbein, 2012, 78) The data collection procedures The procedure of data collection will involve the examination of the procedure protocols adopted by the program under evaluation, the Forum for Youth Investment. This will be achieved via the collection of the information via questionnaires and interviews. The same procedure will be utilized to evaluate the findings from the beneficiary of the outcomes. This includes the targeted youths. The generated pool of information will be subjected to SSRD-based evaluations. Implementation measures The fulfilment of the entire process will allow for the provision of proposals and measures that needs to be engaged for the bettering of the program. This will be proposed in a systemic manner. Apparently, the procedure of evaluating the respective measures will consider the implementation potential accredited to the firm (Fitzpatrick, Sanders & Worthen, 2012, 46). This will allow for the development and proposal of a valid route towards implementation of the considered advancements. Reference Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2012). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson Education. Langbein, L. I. (2012). Public program evaluation: A statistical guide. Armonk, N.Y: M.E. Sharpe. Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2009). Measuring youth program quality: A guide to assessment tools. Washington, DC: Forum for youth investment. Read More