New Search
Project IEP City of Eugeatmaker- Johnston <br /> Table 2 below Provides a summary of the four methods used in evaluation data collection. It also summarizes the <br /> major variables examined in the evaluation process. All interviews and surveys are conducted for purposes of program <br /> assessment/evaluation and improvement. Individual answers will be kept confidential and data will be aggregated to avoid <br /> identification of informants. <br /> Table 2. Summary of Variables and Data Collection Methods for Evaluation of Project IEP. <br /> VARIABLES Direct Inter- Documeat Surveys <br /> cations views Analysis <br /> Architectural Com . ' neat <br /> • Refined con. . a ' deli: . Tea' slate desi: . X X X <br /> Products i z:° 10. '* , 1 = <br /> • Architectural renderin :5 X X X <br /> • Models X X X <br /> • Presentation Materials X X X <br /> • Cost Estimates X X X <br /> In retive Plan and Theme Develo . meat [ <br /> Overall Plan [, • _ . - P 7 1a.Gi1,.. <br /> • Audience Analysis (e.g., Plan addresses: basic demographics, interests, & desired - <br /> activities of • : , , is future audi off- site/outreach . • X X X <br /> • Goals and Objectives (e.g., Plan demonstrates: congruence with wetland <br /> p philosophy, goals, objectives; Plan supports activities that meet goals <br /> and . , ..' & achievable timelines. X X X <br /> • Interpretive Context (e.g., Site - specific priorities; emphasizes features of <br /> � . _, <br /> X X X X <br /> Theme Develo = ment [_ q <br /> • Plan demonstrates: congruence with philosophy, reflects diversity, compliments <br /> building design & setting; Plan shows simplicity and accuracy of messages -3 -5 <br /> main messages throughout; Consistent messages use can appeal to a variety of <br /> learning styles. Plan engages readers and generates interest, reflection or X X X X <br /> end for the • ic. <br /> In - retive Materials - _ T _ . <br /> 1 � at Tools - � ..- � �` _ ; � ,,, � <br /> • Media Selections (e.g., On -site signage, video script/ti-minute video production, <br /> brochures PowerPoint , tattoo. X X <br /> • Evaluation Criteria (e.g., consistency of themes, appeal, cultural sensitivity, logo <br /> - .,: •;on, . X X X X <br /> Educational Materials L re' -;=?,fe`1 [ <br /> • . • .• : Guide for Docents i [ [ ';•. <br /> — a - . _ of Content/Usefulness X X <br /> - Ease of Use/ to -: to User/User Satisfaction X X X <br /> .. Cost X <br /> The evaluation plan outlined in this proposal was based, in part, on an evaluation model that was created by Hatmaker <br /> (1993). Initially, it was used in a 6 -year evaluation of women's residential treatment programs (Grosenick & Hatmaker, <br /> 1993), which was funded by the Center of Substance Abuse Treatment (LSAT) within the U.S. Department of Health and <br /> Human Services. A moderately adapted version was later used by Oregon State University faculty for evaluating kinship and <br /> non- kinship foster care placements in six Oregon counties (Hatmaker, 1995) for the U.S. Department of Health and Human <br /> Services. In 1997, Dr. Hatmaker used it in her two-year evaluation of the State of Oregon's kinship foster care system for the <br /> State Office for Services to Children and Families. The Thligdget Forms tur Budget Justification are presented on the <br /> following pages. (The Appendix Overview, on page 25, provides direction to the Appendices.) <br /> 20 <br /> • <br />