Logic Model

logical systemal system mannikin Brief history of rating and the logic Model Scriven (1991) would argue that military rating has been around for more than long time, and is only at once recognised as a discipline. He would go further and say it is the likes of a intimacy which has been around for a decade before we were discussing its map, nature and logic. It is basically different from science in its methods and thought. He would argue it is only recently we squander appreciated its value as a discipline we still fo at a lower place a long way to go. Despite the flow popularity of logic Models they date back to the 1970s.The origin in the public eye(predicate)ation that used the term logic posture was quoted as paygrade pledge and Performance by Joseph S. Wholey (1979). Suchman (1967) is similar to Bennetts hierarchy, The vii Levels of Evidence (1975, 1976), well-kn own in accommodative Extension circles, was an early(a) predecessor of todays logic computer sim ulation. The backgrounds and footprints of logic pretense thought apprise be seen in the private sphere of influence, public sector and non-profit sector. Private sector- The private sector has experienced total quality attention (TQM) and performance measurement movements.TQM is an on- sack butt that requires prudence and provide to meet the requirements of clients and different bet onholders succession keeping costs to a minimum. Moullin (2002) globe sector- The G overnment Performance tar pee-pees with health and mixer c ar which asked for outcomes which were linked to funding. E. g. Accident and necessity waiting times, more recently the tug for released pris one(a)rs who be managed inside the community by agencies will receive funding if they do non reoffend at bottom a discipline time frame.This is similar to the payment by proceedss archetype inwardly the health receipts. This adage the influx of syllabus managers being assiduous within the public se ctor. We also learn performance indicators within the Local chest of drawers which measure assessment time frames and timely re encounters of LAC. Non-profit sector- The non-profit sector is concerned with improving syllabuss to incur outcomes. This has endinged from the new commissioning guide lines where contr figure outs bring down agreed outcomes linked to funding.I feature chosen the logic model for military rank and am going to discuss its strengths and weaknesses. A logic model is an evaluation turncock that provides a way of illustrating a program visually so it stand be understood by all position holders. It female genitals be presented in disconcert format which sens be presented in easy read language and accordingly pile involve clients with disabilities. It shows planned activities and results anticipate from it and there is no beneficial or wrong way of developing the model.It provides a picture or diagram of what is going to be done and what the p rogram evaluation is going to be. The Logic model has deuce-ace mountes to evaluation It is a client centred (bottom up progression) address 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. in spite of appearance this search it will look at the existing transites of weather the voice of the nipper is heard within the Looked after Children re opine (LAC)?Top down approach kickoff with the pre-planned program activities and strategies that can evaluate a program in its phylogenesisal phase, within the process of LAC review where the voice of the s hold inr is a concept that the government is requisiteing in place. The self-supporting Reviewing Manager is responsible for ensuring the voice of the child is heard. The most essential 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 us efully program planning and evaluation tool.It is simple yet complex it can be time consuming as you seek to involve all berth holders. It whitethorn non always guide weather we are doing the right issue and get caught up in creating the model then weather the program is the right thing to do. It mat stifle creative thinking and spontaneity as it has clear phases to follow. It is easier for the venture holders to understand the overall purpose of the program and it run acrosss the inputs and outputs correspond. It identifies key questions to be evaluated. This whitethorn non always cover all the outcomes that whitethorn happen as a result of the evaluation, e. g. he question asked may result in different 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 desexrs and the agencies. The model a good deal focuses on positive spay sadly this may not be the r esult as miscellany is not always positive. The model can reveal the break in steps in all cancel of the program activities, revealing the limitation where a great deal of patience is required. It may simplify the complicated process of courtship and attri andion where they may be more issues that influence process and outcomes.Scriven puts in truly simple terms The relation betwixt mosquitos and mosquito bites (Scriven, 1991 77) it is primal to realise the logic model only makes a statement of purport not naive realism. Taylor et al (2008) Theory under pinning the logic model say-so Empowerment is a contested concept which can be delineate in m any(prenominal) ways depending on massess cause and ideas. Adams (2003) According to Wallerstein (1992), states mandate is a fond-action process. It encourages elaboration of citizenry, organizations, and communities towards the goals of Individual and community control.Towards political efficacy, ameliorate quality of Lif e and companion adequate to(p) justice, charm Whitmore (1988) feels the concept of Empowerment get hold ofs to be more clearly defined she states that there are whatsoever common key assumptions Individuals are assumed to understand their own needs better than anyone else and therefore should prepare the power both to define and act upon them. All bulk possess strengths upon which they can build. Empowerment is a lifelong endeavour. in the flesh(predicate) realizeledge and experience are effectual and useful in managing. McDougall (1997) suggests empowerment is not an intervention or a strategy. sort of it is a funda moral way of thinking. Empowerment is not giving plenty power good deal already beat plenty of power, in the wealth of their companionship 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 evalua tion themselves need to be committed to the values of equality and favorcapable inclusion otherwise the outcomes may be ingrained highlighting one of the weakness of the theory and logic model where we can curb unexpected outcomes, and influences we may not vex anticipated. friendship companionship of children and immature people in social work policy and practice has been a fairly new concept. For many years professionals interpretation of childrens feelings, needs and wishes overhear determined serve and influenced interrogation and policy. Franklin et al (2004). It has slowly dawned on professionals over the ratiocination 30 years that children and young somebody people need to be twisty in decision making and processes. This desire to involve children and young people has only change magnitude since 2000 Oldfield et al (2004).Participation now is underlying to current government legislation, policy and focussing framework underpinning deli actually of public serv ices to children and young people. This thinking has been influenced by social and political changes at national and outside(a) 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 by his research the competencies children have in getting involved in decision making, and children and young people have been identified as a base in their own right.Alderson particular concentrate on children and young peoples ability to discuss and give sw cater to surgery. Fanklin et al (2004) The emergence of the childrens rights agenda. Children and young people began to gain legal participatory rights in decision- making under the UN design on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), it was ratified in the UK in 1991. This focused adults to think rough how to involve children and young people in decision suppress to abilities and understanding Franklin et al (20046).Marchant et al (2004136) would suggest that too often we are focvictimization on children and young peoples competence to get in rather than on adults competence to support children and young people to make decisions and take action. on that point has been an increase influence of the consumer the concept that as consumers children and young people are prone more power threw legislation and policy to exercise choice and influence over the services they receive. Franklin et al (2004). Sadly volume 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 sincerely have choice are the consumers? The shock of high profile child testimonial illustrations in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which uncovered systematic physical and knowledgeable abuse by staff in childrens homes led to an experiencement that adults know best and will act in the inter est of children and young people had failed many children. There was a culture of collusion, neglect, phlegm and silence on the part of staff Landsdown (20013).Children were denied a voice speaking with, hearing to and actively involving children and young people would have ensured their protection. Scottish Executive (2004) There is a growing movement of childrens service user and carers, we have seen a development of groups such as the Childrens Rights attachment for England (2005) the Childrens Society (2006), National unripe Carers Initiative and A National Voice, who are working towards transforming the status of children and young people in the UK. Childrens participation in the United Kingdom (UK) has moved a long way.Children and young people can play a crucial share when organisations heeden to them in delivering services. Wright et al (2006) Methods There are robust applied reasons to view qualitative evaluation methods as consonant 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 patent in practice then in theory and that often evaluators will use more than one approach ascribable to the complexity of the work they do.Reichardt (1994) The remand beneath 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 mood approach starting with the selective information and then making sense by expression at the themes that emerge through language, feelings and experience. It is a holistic approach which is empowering as it tries to award all stake holders 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. pick out Diffe rences Between Qualitative and three-figure 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) apply natural anguage throughout theevaluation process In-depth, particular data collection Use of case studies The evaluator as the primary measuringinstrument A naturalistic approach does not explicitlymanipulate the oscilloscope Research hypotheses and questions that are tested in the evaluation Finding patterns that either keep up ordisconfirm particular hypotheses and answer the evaluation questions grounds how social reality, asobserved by the evaluator, corroborates ordisconfirms hypotheses and evaluationquestions Emphasis on measurement procedures that lend themselves to numeri cal representations of variables exemplification seeks of stakeholder groups Use take sizes with able statisticalpower to chance expected outcomes Measuring instruments that are constructed with a view to making them reliable and binding Evaluator control and ability to manipulatethe cathode-ray oscilloscope, which improves the internalvalidity, the statistical conclusions validity,and the construct validity of the researchdesigns (Miles & Huberman, 1994) We will be using a purposive type 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 close children and young people going through the process and weather their voice is heard. The table below shows the profits and detriments of sampling methods and why we have chosen purposive sampling. Samp ling proficiencys Advantages and disadvantage Technique Descriptions Advantages Disadvantages Simple haphazard random standard from whole universe of discourse highly exemplification if all subjects participate the standard non accomplishable without complete list of population members potentially uneconomical to deliver the goods 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. back end ensure that specialised groups are delineated, even proportionally, in the sample(s) (e. g. , by gender), by selecting individuals from strata list to a greater extent complex, requires greater effort than simple random strata must be carefully defined Cluster Random samples of successive crowds 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 lo cal lists do data amass on groups may avoid base 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 racket equal, but unemployment rates differ) Stage compounding of cluster (randomly selecting clusters) and random or secernate 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 nonrandom Hand-pick subjects on the basis of specific characteristics Ensures balance of group sizes when multiple groups are to be selected Samples are not comfortably defensible as being object lesson of populations due to potential subjectivity of research worker Select individuals as they come to overindulge a quota by characteristics proportional to populations Ensures woof 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. (1999118) For this research the narrative approach for interviewing the sample has been chosen. What we think up by the word narrative is important to understand why we are using this approach.TheOxford Mini Dictionarydefines narrative as a spoken or compose account of something (Ha wker, 2002 406). Chambers Twentieth coke Dictionaryis not specific about(predicate) 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, comprehensive 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 linear perspective Marshall et al (1995). The main advantage of the process is that in th e interviews we will be able to find the voice of the histrion in the particular time, place and setting in this case the LAC review. Connelly et al (1990) this can also lead to gaining shrewdness into the organisational change which can lead to cultural change. Faber (1998), Boje (1991), beechwood (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 detective 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 bank with the sample takes time the snapshot view and s mall sample may move 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. Interviewing is a complex and demanding technique (Frey and Oishi 199502) 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 comely answer. Breakwell et al (1950). It allows the interviewer to ask open questions and appendix ones to clarify views, Frey and Oishi (1995). They may not be completely honest and ask boom 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)