Standards Stakeholders and Ethics Fiona’s Case: An Ethical Dilemma for a Program Evaluator Ethical dilemmas represent an important consideration for public

Standards Stakeholders and Ethics Fiona’s Case: An Ethical Dilemma for a Program Evaluator Ethical dilemmas represent an important consideration for public policy and administration professionals. Organizational stakeholders and their values and principles present unique challenges for program evaluators. For this Discussion, review “Fiona’s Choice: An Ethical Dilemma for a Program Evaluator” on page 473 in the McDavid course text. A response to the following: List values and principles that would be important to the main stakeholders in this situation, both for Fiona and the organization. Use the AEA’s guiding principles for evaluators as a guide. Explain the values and principles that you selected as important to the main stakeholders and how you would handle this situation.Two colleagues and explain whether you agree or disagree with the recommended course of action and explain why. Explain one other option that might be consistent with ethical conduct.Assignment questions (Information at the bottom of this document) Fiona’s Case: An Ethical Dilemma for a Program Evaluator
Ethical dilemmas represent an important consideration for public policy and
administration professionals. Organizational stakeholders and their values and
principles present unique challenges for program evaluators. For this Discussion, review
“Fiona’s Choice: An Ethical Dilemma for a Program Evaluator” on page 473 in the
McDavid course text.
A response to the following:
1) List values and principles that would be important to the main stakeholders in
this situation, both for Fiona and the organization. Use the AEA’s guiding
principles for evaluators as a guide. Explain the values and principles that you
selected as important to the main stakeholders and how you would handle this
situation.
2) Two colleagues and explain whether you agree or disagree with the
recommended course of action and explain why. Explain one other option that
might be consistent with ethical conduct.
3) Assignment questions (Information at the bottom of this document)
Student 1MH
It is paramount to build relationships throughout the evaluation process, as the
engagement of stakeholders can be an integral part of the process Frierson, Hughes, & Thomas,
2010). The two guiding principles that stakeholders would find important to Fiona’s situation are
integrity/honesty, common good and equity, and respect for people. The American Evaluation
Association (AEA) (2004) described integrity/honesty as “communicating truthfully.” In detail,
C.5 of the AEA states “Accurately and transparently represent evaluation procedures, data, and
findings” (AEA, 2004). C.6 of the AEA (2004) states “Clearly communicate, justify, and address
concerns related to procedures or activities that are likely to produce misleading evaluative
information. Consult with colleagues for suggestions on ways to proceed if issues cannot be
resolved. Common good and equity refers to recognizing and balancing the interests of the client,
other stakeholders, and the common good while preserving the integrity of the evaluation”
(AEA, 2004). Respect for people can be described as striving to maximize the benefits while
reducing harm for those associated with the evaluation (AEA, 2004). These guiding principles
would be important to stakeholders because the ability to maintain integrity throughout the
evaluation is important.
When integrity is fulfilled, the evaluators will abide by all other principles. Fiona
struggled with resolving a matter in a way that may potentially undo some promises that were
made as well as presenting honest information (McDavid, Huse, & Hawthorn, 2013). Fiona’s
situation will take professional courage to do the right thing while reducing harmful risks and
destroying the credibility of the evaluation. Sometimes people do not mind if someone cannot
meet all expectations if they are honest about it not being able to do so. It is impossible to please
everyone. This student would review the cost-benefit analysis multiple times with colleagues and
other stakeholders to see if there is a way to keep the promises with minimal risks to everyone
associated with the evaluation, which includes evaluators, participating stakeholders, and the
public. Presenting biased information to alter an evaluation in the desired direction of the
evaluator is wrong and poses a threat to the validity of the evaluation.
References
American Evaluation Association. (2004). American
evaluation association’s guiding
principles for evaluators. Retrieved
from http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51
Frierson, H. T., Hood, S., Hughes, G. B., & Thomas, V. G. (2010). A guide to conducting
culturally responsive evaluations. In J. F. Westat (Ed.), The
2010 user-friendly
handbook for project evaluation (pp. 75–93). Retrieved
fromhttps://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CC_1%20NSF%20Pr
oject%20Evaluation%20Handbook%202010.pdf
McDavid, J. C., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2013). Program
evaluation and
performance measurement: An introduction to practice (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Student 2 CYA
RE: Discussion – Week 10
In the case of “Fiona’s Choice”, the protagonist is facing several ethical
considerations in the evaluation process she is considering. She has been asked to
evaluate programs and possibly modify the reporting of results to justify cuts to
certain programs as a result of the campaign promises by the governor. Ethics in
research is so important, and establishing rules promotes accountability to the
public. Without established standards of conduct in research, people would simply do
what they determine is acceptable. Because one person’s perception of what is
acceptable behavior may differ from what others feel is acceptable, it is advisable that
there be an agreement on set standards of conduct when the good of the public is in
question.
The values and principles important to stakeholders in Fiona’s Choice are
“integrity” and “common good and equity”. In reviewing the AEA’s guiding
principles, all aspects of integrity are compromised by what Fiona has been asked to
do. Additionally, common good and equity are not accomplished by falsifying results
of the evaluation of programs. Public programs are established for the purpose of
furthering a more equitable and just society. Those programs are evaluated so that
society can benefit from the programs that are producing desired
outcomes. Evaluators are supposed to be objective when conducting evaluations
because if we rely solely on our subjective responsibility, there is the potential that
corruption can occur. We must have accountability to someone else, and our ultimate
responsibility is to the public interest.
This situation seems impossible for Fiona, but I think that if I were put in that
position, I would advocate for performing honest evaluations and eliminating those
programs that truly were under-performing. If it was determined that results would be
falsified anyway, I would suggest they use an outside company. If evaluators agree to
lie, their work can never be trusted.
References:
American Evaluation Association. (2004). American evaluation association’s guiding
principles for evaluators. Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51
Frierson, H. T., Hood, S., Hughes, G. B., & Thomas, V. G. (2010). A guide to
conducting culturally responsive evaluations. In J. F. Westat (Ed.), The 2010
user-friendly handbook for project evaluation (pp. 75–93).
McDavid, J. C., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2013). Program evaluation and
performance measurement: An introduction to practice (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morris, M. (2011). The good, the bad, and the evaluator: 25 years of AJE ethics.
American Journal of Evaluation, 32(1), 134–151.
Picciotto, R. (2011). The logic of evaluation professionalism. Evaluation, 17(2), 165–
180.Bottom of Form
Required Resources
Note: To access this week’s required library resources, please click on the link to the Course
Readings List, found in the Course Materials section of your Syllabus.
Readings
•
McDavid, J. C., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2013). Program evaluation and performance
measurement: An introduction to practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
o
Chapter 12, “The Nature and Practice of Professional Judgment in Program Evaluation” (pp.
439–478)
•
Morris, M. (2011). The good, the bad, and the evaluator: 25 years of AJE ethics. American Journal
of Evaluation, 32(1), 134–151.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
•
Picciotto, R. (2011). The logic of evaluation professionalism. Evaluation, 17(2), 165–180.
Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.
•
Frierson, H. T., Hood, S., Hughes, G. B., & Thomas, V. G. (2010). A guide to conducting culturally
responsive evaluations. In J. F. Westat (Ed.), The 2010 user-friendly handbook for project
evaluation(pp. 75–93). Retrieved
from https://cgsnet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/CC_1%20NSF%20Project%20Evaluation%20Handbook%202
010.pdf
Optional Resources
•
American Evaluation Association. (2004). American evaluation association’s guiding principles for
evaluators. Retrieved from http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=51
•
Ramirez, R., & Brodhead, D. (2013). Utilization focused evaluation: A primer for
evaluators. Retrieved
from http://evaluationinpractice.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ufeenglishprimer.pdf
Assignment Below
Stakeholder Analysis
Utilization-focused evaluation is founded on the notion that an evaluation design must be responsive
to the needs of those who will use its results. Other schools of thought may not view utilization as the
driving force in the same way. Nonetheless, the point of all evaluation research is to have the findings
used.
For this Assignment, step back from the evaluation you have been planning for your Final Project, and
think about how the results will be used.
Submit by Day 7 a 2- to 3-page paper that addresses the following questions using my Public
Program information below.
•
Identify which stakeholders you would involve and their roles in the evaluation process.
•
Identify what you see as each stakeholder’s interest in the program you selected, and in the
evaluation results.
•
Identify any ethical issues that should be considered.
•
Determine whether you will be able to meet their needs with the evaluation you have planned so
far.
•
After thinking about your evaluation from various angles, analyze ways in which you envision the
need for the evaluation and the end results being put to use.
•
Explain any changes that this analysis suggests for the remaining sections of your design that you
have already developed.
Public Program
Public Assistance Programs are commonly referred to as welfare, and these are
programs by the government in conjunction with individuals and organizations
targeting the less fortunate in society. These programs in the United States have been
crucial in improving the welfare and livelihood of millions who may otherwise suffer
extreme poverty. One such program is Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF). This program provides cash to needy families based on their social and
financial status. The quantitative design of an experiment involving this program,
therefore, should look into whether the provision of the cash assistance resolves or
reduces the rates of poverty among the identified people.
The first step of experimenting is the selection of experiment participants. This
selection will be divided into two large groups; the treatment and control groups.
According to USAID (2013), a non-equivalent group design involves hand-picking
the treatment and control group participants, but since all the qualities cannot be
matched to ensure that they are all entirely similar; this is called non-equivalent group
design. In this case, a group of participants registered for welfare under TANF may be
used as the treatment group. This group may include the random selection of
participants from the national pool of TANF registrants and then providing a fixed
amount of cash handouts for a significant period such as six months.
The selection of the control group allows a basis for comparing the effects of the
implemented program. As such, according to USGAO (2009), the equivalence of the
control group to the treatment group is crucial when selecting a group to compare
outcomes with. Therefore, although full equivalence may be impossible, selecting the
control group participants should be focused on ensuring that as close similarity as
possible is acquired. Therefore, when selecting the control group for the TANF
program, it will be crucial to select participants from
similar demographic groups as the treatment group. For instance, the control group
should encompass participants from the same geographical regions, age-groups, and
even socio-economic statuses as the treatment group. Therefore, for every participant
in the treatment group, another one with matching characteristics should be selected
for the control. The primary approach to the study, hence, will be a quasiexperimental approach since the control group participants will be hand-picked to
match the qualities of the treatment group.
Additionally, the evaluation of the program effectiveness requires that selection bias is
addressed and eliminated during the quantitative design of the program evaluation.
Selection bias, according to Langbein (2012), is the difference between the treatment
and control group based on the inherent differences present during the selection of the
participants. Furthermore, since this is a quasi-experimental design, the best way to
address the selection bias is to use random sampling approaches; this also ensures that
the sample is representative of the larger population and biases are reduced since there
is little targeting (Langbein, 2012). Specifically, random sampling will be used for the
treatment group and not for the control group, hence maintaining a quasi-experimental
approach. This approach will be used in evaluating the TANF program, especially in
selecting the treatment group participants. By choosing a random sample for the
treatment, this will ensure that the selected participants represent the entire group that
receives social welfare services.
Another approach to reducing selection bias would be ensuring that people from
different geographical regions and other variables are represented in both groups.
According to McDavid, Huse, and Hawthorn (2013), representation of all variables in
the sample is crucial in capturing the overall sample outcomes of an entire population.
Therefore, people from different regions, statuses, and social classes will be
represented in the treatment and control groups. For instance,
ensuring that the significant racial identities are represented is a crucial step towards
avoiding selection bias.
Finally, the design to evaluate the effectiveness of TANF will include evaluation of
the poverty outcomes for the treatment and control groups. The dependent variable
will be poverty among both the control-group and treatment-group participants.
Comparing the levels of poverty between these two groups after the intervention has
been implemented, will ensure observation of the effects of the cash handouts on
poverty in the treatment groups. The treatment group will be provided with the cash
for six months while the control group fails to receive the same. After the six months,
a follow-up evaluation of their poverty rates will be conducted using the same
measures used initially to evaluate the participants’ rates of poverty. The evaluation of
program effectiveness is crucial in ensuring that the sponsors, judge the outcomes of
the program. Using an experimental approach to the TANF program will ensure that
selection bias is avoided while increasing the accuracy of the evaluation.
References
Langbein, L. (2012). Public program evaluation: A statistical guide (2nd ed.).
Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
McDavid, J. C., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2013). Program evaluation and
performance measurement: An introduction to practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
USAID. (2013). Impact evaluations. Retrieved from
http://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1870/IE_Technical_Note_2013_0
903_Final.pdf
United States Government Accountability Office (USGAO). (2009). Randomized
experiments can provide the most credible evidence of effectiveness under certain
conditions. In Program evaluation: A variety of rigorous methods can help identify
effective interventions (pp. 20–26). Retrieved from
http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/298907.pdf

Purchase answer to see full
attachment