In my late 40s, when I began this “going back to school” journey 🏞 at the local community college, I learned that a student of my age is referred to as “non-traditional.” Additionally, I quickly learned to refer to myself as “tech-unsavvy,” to my fellow students, who were half my age. These fun facts were some of the first of endless tidbits of knowledge I’ve gained on my adventure in pursuit of higher education 📚. Incredibly blessed to have had the privilege of even considering this pursuit, let alone the opportunity to actually get to do it – my life feels enchanted.

Now, here I am, at the ripe young age of 50 😮😎, and in my last couple of semesters at Old Dominion University Online, close to graduating with a 4-year degree 🎉 YAY!! I may not be the best student academically but I’m surely one of the most appreciative, excited, and education-loving students this side of the Mississippi. Having half a lifetime of adult experience & getting to shift gears and begin another chapter, has so far been one of my Top 10 📌 favorite events in my life.

This course, Human Services 440W – Program Development, Implementation & Funding, on the other hand, has not been one of my favorite things. It’s been difficult and much more complex to grasp than I anticipated. However, with that truth 💣 being dropped, this course has also been one of the most helpful to me, in understanding human services program functioning and success. To me, this increased understanding is extremely valuable as I look forward to my next (and maybe, last few) careers that will purposefully and ideally, be closer to being in alignment with my values and purpose on this earth, as compared to most of the work I’ve done in my life. Which to me, at this juncture, is everything.

A bit more tech-savvy than I was a few years ago ✅ I’ve now mastered the use of creative emoji placement. This E-Portfolio contains some of the assignments I completed in this course.

I look forward to working in the human services field and applying the knowledge gained from so many interesting courses, including this one. Learning is fun 💯!! Thank you for reading.

⚡ May the Adventure Continue for Us All ⚡

Task ONE – Agency Selection

1️⃣

The program I chose for evaluation is CASA or, Court Appointed Special Advocates. CASA is sometimes referred to as “CASA/GAL,” (Guardian ad Litem) because the CASA program works hand in hand with GALs to advocate for children involved in court proceedings due to having been neglected or abused or suspected of both.

Court Appointed Special Advocates 👩‍⚖️

CASA is a national volunteer organization with over nine-hundred programs in the U.S. The local program I’ve gained permission to evaluate is one of the Commonwealth of Virgina’s 27 CASA programs, and is called Northern Neck CASA. This small CASA office has 3 paid employees and 17 volunteer/advocates. CASA programs located in Virginia are overseen by the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS).

Mission and Purpose 📝 📐

CASA/GAL Association for Children was founded in 1977 by a juvenile court judge in Seattle, Washington who saw a need for additional information in the cases that came before him. The Honorable David W. Soukup, decided that the decisions he made regarding neglected and abused children’s lives were too consequential not to have as much information as possible. Established “as a model for safeguarding a child’s rights to a safe and permanent family,” CASA programs consist of layperson volunteers/advocates with no agenda but the child’s best interest.  The trained volunteer/advocate spends time with the child, speaking with them and hearing their thoughts and feelings on things as well as thoroughly and objectively investigating all aspects of the child(ren’s) life as well as the people in the child(ren’s) life. The CASA volunteer/advocate submits a report to the court before each hearing in the child’s case to provide the judge with important information to help him/her make the best decision for the child’s immediate and ongoing wellbeing.

Demographics. 👵 🧑🏾 👶🏻 👧🏽 👨🏻

Northern Neck Court Appointed Special Advocates for neglected and abused children serve children who are in the court system due to neglect, abuse or a need for services and/or supervision. The need for services/supervision cases are also known as CHINS (child in need of services/supervision) and often turn into abuse/neglect cases after additional information is discovered. The service area covers 5 counties in Virginia’s Northern Neck – Essex, Lancaster, Westmoreland, Richmond, and Northumberland. These counties are rural and primarily low-middle income areas. Exact statistics are unavailable at this time, however the NNCASA director stated that approximately 70% or more of families served are Caucasian. The director additionally stated that many of the parents, of the children served have criminal charges pending, often related to substance use and abuse.

Reasons for choosing this agency. 💛

When I decided that I wanted to go back to school to pursue a degree in higher education I was in my late 30s. Unable to begin the undertaking for a few years, I became clear about my motivation. Ultimately, I wanted to find a career that was somehow in service to one of the many vulnerable populations in this world as well as being in alignment with what I feel my life’s purpose and values are.

Having chosen a child advocacy track as a human services major, minoring in psychology in my senior year at ODU online, and living in a rural area that I love…. I have been diligently taking stock of organizations and agencies nearby my home for potential employment. CASA’s mission is close to my heart, and I am eager to learn more about it. NNCASA is a local organization that I hope to have a future with.

Task TWO – Evaluation Questions

2️⃣

DRAFT 🔴

Q1:   How effective is the NNCASA program in increasing the well-being and safety of “CASA kids,” intermediary and long-term?

Q2:   How effective are NNCASA court reports in providing useful information to the judge?                     or…. How often does an NNCASA court report affect the judge’s order at any given hearing?

FINAL 🟢

Q1: How effective is the NNCASA program in increasing the well being and safety of “CASA kids” during and immediately and by the close of their case?

Q2: How often does an NNCASA report to the court affect a Judge’s orders?

Task THREE – Annotated Bibliography

3️⃣

Ben David, V. (2021). Associations Between Parental Mental Health and Child Maltreatment: The Importance of Family Characteristics. Social Sciences (Basel), 10(6), 190. 📚

522 parents (with an equal number of 261 mothers and fathers each) who, due to having been found guilty of child maltreatment in a court of law, had their parental rights terminated (TPR) made up the study sample for the information in this article. Of the parents involved, 61% of them was diagnosed with at least one type of mental health challenge. 83% made up most of the parents who were diagnosed with an intellectual disability as well as another type of mental health issue, most often personality disorder, clearly demonstrating in this case that intellectual disability often co-occurs with a mental health challenge. The usefulness of this article to an evaluation of CASA is an increased knowledge of the issues often underlying the presence of families involved in juvenile domestic relations court (JDR) due to abuse and/or neglect of children. This may be one of the most important articles related to my evaluation program of choice as all professionals involved in JDR court proceedings are benefitted in their duty to protect the best interest of the child(ren) when they are informed about these statistics. Interestingly, findings in this study conclude that moms with personality disorders and dads with a mental illness were the most likely determinates of child abuse. Additionally, the risk of maltreatment in childhood was found to be undoubtedly related to poor mental health in parents. The importance of understanding the link between mental health of parents and children and the increased risk of types of abuse is the takeaway from this article.

Brocious, H., Trawver, K., & Griffin, R. (2021). Supporting and Expanding Statewide CASA Programs. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 72(2), 41-58. 📚

This article examines the present strengths and barriers to nationwide CASA programs. Specifically looking at four important facets of the program: (1) CASA volunteers being able to investigate a child’s life the way legal and DSS professionals, due to time constraints, are unable to. (2) CASA volunteer advocates making an impact on case progression and outcome. (3) Statewide and sometimes federal structures and resources being an essential part of the programs ability to function effectively. (4) Innovations to improve CASA practice and procedure. 73 individual staff, supervisory staff and Guardian ad Litem participated in either a focus group or individual interviews. The basis of the conclusion states that a consensus exists that the pre-service training for volunteer/advocates is useful but that “not enough or enough of the right type of training was provided to new CASA volunteers.” The article goes on to say that the body of research on CASA programs is lacking and many important studies are outdated. Recommended research includes Navigating a flawed system by C. Katz, et. Al.

Ingber, H. (2023). Between the law and itself: An examination of the best interests of the child standard in the New York city family court. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 20(3), 481-494. 📚

            Summarizing the crux of the mission of family courts, this article maintains the focus throughout which is the power of the court and of the judge in making life altering judgments concerning families. The methods used consisted of interviewing a convenience sample of seven judges who had experience as sitting judges in court systems hearing custody cases for children of New York City, specifically: Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island Family Courts and the New York City Supreme Court. The interviews were comprehensive and took place in 2014. Additionally, the author undertook a “thematic analysis” of each interview transcript resulting in qualitative data. The article discusses the relative nature of childhood maturity versus age; credibility, the child’s mental capacity and health, the judge’s personal sense about a child as well as the “subjectivity inherent in judicial systems regarding children,” and how these common factors often have bearing on best interest.

            The author finds that due to the massive complexity present in family court cases, differences in judicial discretion, expertise, and knowledge sometimes conflict with the sometimes-vague standard of “best interest,” and the closed nature of the law.

This article is relevant to CASA’s mission of prioritizing the best interest of the child.

Katz, C., Moles, K., Grauwiler, P., & Post, S. (2019). The Context-Specific Service Provision of CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate program). Child Welfare, 98(2), 63. 📚

            Spurred on by the Admin. of Children’s Services (ACS) goal of measuring the effectiveness of child wellbeing, safety and permanency outcomes of contracted agencies, a New York Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program decided to evaluate their program as well. Using survey methods and data analysis, the “context specific service provisions” of this CASA program is discussed thoroughly in the article. The relevance is obvious as the article itself analyzes the functionality and effectiveness of a high-volume CASA program. Survey questions consisted of indicators of CASA’s effectiveness in connecting children to mental health care as well as yes/no questions to indicate how often or how rare a goal was met. Data analysis was done over an 8-quarter period (2 years) and was differentiated by age groups: zero to five, 6 to 15, and 16 to 21. With the middle age group, 6 to 15, accounting for the highest age averages involved in CASA services. The study concluded that provisions provided were greatly determined by age range of the youth. Additionally, the study concluded that most provisions provided by the CASA program involved meeting with families and individuals within the child(ren’s) circle of influence, attending court to “provide information and advocate for services,” and fact-finding regarding mostly the child’s health care and school records. The study states that the overall conclusions and purpose is to encourage other CASA programs to do similar studies and share data citing the importance of addressing context specific needs all towards the goal and shared purpose of the National CASA organization.

Katz, C., Tsur, N., Talmon, A., & Nicolet, R. (2021). Beyond fight, flight, and freeze: Towards a new conceptualization of peritraumatic responses to child sexual abuse based on retrospective accounts of adult survivors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 112, 104905. 📚

            A questionnaire method was used to gather data in four categories of peritraumatic response in180 adults who reported being sexually abused as children. The categories included automatic, behavioral, cognitive, and affective. The authors conclude that current theory and response to childhood trauma, specifically childhood sexual abuse (CSA) need to be expanded to include new findings; “numbness and seeking ways to survive the abuse.” Focusing on the multifaceted nature of peritraumatic response to CSA, the article uses data to demonstrate the irrelevance of some common intervention responses as found in the study based on these participants. The authors recommend incorporation of the following in prevention and intervention efforts: Updating training to the latest findings for practitioners working with children who are victims of CSA as well as adults. Modification of current prevention programs that target children. This article is highly applicable to evaluation of the CASA program as it addresses how complex the trauma response can be especially in children and especially involving CSA in their family of origin. This complexity highlights the need for multidisciplinary professionals within family court cases involving abuse, which CASA helps to provide. Additionally, a couple recommended research recommendations made by the authors are, The interrelationships of child maltreatment, alcohol use and suicidal ideation among youth living in the slums of Kampala, Uganda by Culbreth and Kasirye & Fight or Flight Responses by M. Romero.

Task FIVE – Research Plan

5️⃣

 This paper will outline stakeholders, research questions, methods chosen and reasoning behind these choices, for an evaluation of a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) program located in the Northern Neck of Virginia. Focused mainly on gathering qualitative data, via mixed methods, the research will also look at statistics gathered from the NNCASA database.

Stakeholders 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦

Using a top-down approach, the research plan is to start with an in-person interview with the sitting Juvenile Domestic Relations (JDR) Court Judge for the five-county jurisdiction that the Northern Neck CASA program covers, if able to schedule. Ideally, a mixed method of data collection will be used in the form of a face to face, proposed 20-minute interview plus a short survey delivered and returned via email. This approach considers the origins of CASA’s mission. In 1976, Judge David W. Soukep of the Seattle, Washington juvenile court, saw a need for more information regarding the circumstances of children’s lives as well as a need to empower their voices, which often fell through the cracks of the family court system (http://www.nationalcasagal.org). As the original requester of CASA assistance to this day, as well as ultimate holder of discernment in JDR cases effecting youth, the judge will be considered primary stakeholder.

Next, but no less important, are the Guardian Ad Litems (GALs) for the child(ren). Like the judge, data collection with these individuals will be done via in-person interviews (when available) and self-survey delivered and returned via email. Five GALs have been identified as prospective participants with the minimum goal being no less than three GALs participating. The GALs role in the evaluation will ultimately be an extremely important one. The two entities supplying much of the information provided to the judge in these cases is the GAL and the CASA volunteer, who are meant to work together gathering information solely for the purpose of advocating for child(ren)’s best interests. The GALs are projected to perhaps supply the most critical feedback in the evaluation of NNCASA.

Additional stakeholders include one or two Department of Social Services (DSS) workers from each of the five counties working with NNCASA, a minimum of five CASA volunteers and at least three paid office staff. Data collection will occur via interview and self-surveys as well as data collected from the NNCASA database. The role each stakeholder will play in the evaluation will be critical to ultimate conclusions made by the evaluator. Anticipated criticism is partially expected from the DSS workers as their positions are as “front-line” as it gets. With heavy caseloads, pressures and parameters unique to a state employment position, DSS workers will ideally represent at least one worker per county (five workers) for data-collection purposes. NNCASA volunteers will supply data mainly via a customized (to their position) self-survey, and a group chat session in which a group interview will be conducted. Their role is anticipated to reveal NNCASA policy and procedure failings and effectiveness, as they see it. NNCASA paid staff, which include the director, the advocate supervisor and the administrative assistant will play an important role in providing access to the database and henceforth most of the quantitative data. In addition, NNCASA staff will ideally provide interview qualitative interview data and self-survey data which has the potential to reveal strengths and weaknesses of the inner workings of the office toward the mission of the program.

Evaluation Types, Evaluation Questions and Alignment ✳ ❔ ✔

As the CASA program is one-of-a-kind program, the evaluation type that seems most suitable is qualitative. The evaluation will rely heavily on face-to-face qualitative feedback as well as self-surveys (allowing for transparency that may not be as forthcoming in person) from key stakeholders. Quantitative data will additionally be collected via statistical data and provide an interesting reconciliation as compared to the qualitative data.

The evaluation questions are as follows: a) How effective is the NNCASA program in increasing the well-being and safety of “CASA kids,” intermediary and long-term? b) How effective are NNCASA court reports in providing consequential and/or useful information to the judge? These questions specifically target the evaluation of CASA’s mission statement, which states that CASA’s function is to, “……support and promote court-appointed volunteer advocacy so every child who has experienced abuse or neglect can be safe, have a permanent home, and the opportunity to thrive.” (http://www.nationalcasagal.org).  These questions were chosen to be in direct alignment with the national programs mission statement and to evaluate overall effectiveness of the NNCASA program.

Gathering statistical data via NNCASA’s database will be the quantitative portion of the data collection and in alignment with the second question (b), specifically answering how often the judge’s court order reflects the recommendations made directly by a CASA report to the court. The interview/survey data collection methods will mainly provide the qualitative information which directly aligns with intermediary and long-term situational child circumstance.

Sources of Data, Methods, and Reasoning ⬛ ◼ ◾

As previously mentioned, the sources of data collection will first be the JDR judge for NNCASA’s jurisdiction which covers five counties: Lancaster, Northumberland, Westmoreland, Richmond, and Essex counties. The next data source will be three to five GALs servicing the stated jurisdictional area. Each individual will provide qualitative and expert data from years of experience in the field of juvenile and domestic relations family court. Quantitative data will be collected from these professionals as available. Data will be collected via in person interviews that include formatted questions in alignment with the stated evaluation questions.

Additional sources of data will be the workers at DSS, no less than five but hopefully closer to ten, as well as at least five CASA volunteer advocates and up to three NNCASA office staff members, but not less than two. Data collection methods applied to these groups will include partial one-on-one interviews with group chats/interviews as well as self-surveys formatted and customized specifically to each groups area of practice and involvement with NNCASA. The bulk of quantitative data will be gathered by NNCASA staff providing access to their database statistical reports geared toward answering the evaluation questions posed. 

The reasoning behind the chosen sources and methods can be found in the human (specifically best interest of the child) centered mission. GALs are often paid less than other types of law practice and so the position can be considered at least partially, philanthropic in nature. The CASA program at large depends on volunteers who dedicate their time to advocating for children in often difficult life circumstances. In this way, CASA volunteers are inherently philanthropic in their dedication. Being that the program inherently has this piece of service-oriented work, there is no way in this evaluator’s opinion to conduct qualitative as well as quantitative data collection without speaking face-to-face with as many of the listed stakeholders as possible. Mixed method of data collection includes database statistics, individual interviews, group chat/interviews and comprehensive and customized surveys done by the individuals and returned in their own time to the evaluator.

References

https://nationalcasagal.org/about-us/history/ Retrieval date, October 13, 2023

Posavac, E.J. (2011). Program Evaluation Methods and Case Studies. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education, Inc.

Task SIX – Protocol

6️⃣

Survey Questions ❓ ❔ ❓ ❔ ❓

Answers: 1) Very 2) Moderately 3) Neutral 4) Somewhat 5) Not at all.

  • How effective do you think CASA court reports are to increasing the wellbeing of kids immediately and long-term?
  • How effective do you think CASA court reports are to increasing the safety of kids immediately and long-term?
  • How effective do you think the CASA program is in general to increasing the wellbeing and safety of kids immediately and long-term?
  • How influential are CASA reports to the court in your opinion?
  • How useful are CASA court reports in providing useful information to the judge?
  • How much do you feel that CASA influences the course of a child’s case?
  • How useful are CASA advocates in gathering/obtaining useful information that assist all parties with decisions regarding best interests of the child(ren)?
  • How often do CASA advocates speak to the appropriate people in the child’s life?
  • How often do CASA advocates spend enough time speaking with the child/children directly?

For the survey questions, I plan on having these somewhat customized to the stakeholders who get them. Surveys will be delivered and returned via email, unless the recipient prefers to print a hard copy and return via mail. The stakeholders receiving survey questions will include the judge, the GALs, the DSS workers, the CASA staff, and the CASA advocates.

Interview Questions 📝

  • What, if anything, would you change about CASA’s function within a child’s case?
  • What is the most useful thing about CASA’s involvement in a case?
  • How much have you witnessed CASA involvement influence the course of a child’s case? For better? For worse?
  • What if anything would you change about the CASA Advocate’s function within a child’s case?
  • How often have you seen a child “fall through the cracks,” in a case in which CASA is involved? And if so, why do you believe it happened?
  • What, if anything, is missing from CASA reports to the court?
  • Do you feel that CASA advocates spend enough time getting to know the child/children?
  • Do you think that CASA advocates spend enough time recording the child’s direct needs/wants/messages to the court? Another way to pose this question might be: Do you think that CASA advocates indeed function as a “voice for the children?”

The interview questions will be individually asked in an in-person interview (ideally but Zoom/phone call would work as well) with the Judge, a minimum of 5 GALs, and a minimum of 5 DSS workers, 5 CASA advocates and at least 2 CASA staff 👯‍♀️.

Discussion Topics for Focus Groups 💭 🗨

Same as interview questions + the two evaluation questions to the group:

  1. How effective is the CASA program in increasing the wellbeing & safety of children intermediary and long-term?
  2. How effective are the CASA reports to the court in providing useful information to the judge?

For the focus groups, I plan on gathering a minimum of 5 CASA advocates and keeping the discussion to a minimum of 30 minutes and up to an hour ⏳

Data Collection 📊 📈 📉

Database statistical reports requested:

  • Numbers of recommendations made by the CASA court report versus recommendations accepted by the judge.
  • Stats on zero recommendations being accepted by the judge.
  • Kids successfully removed from neglectful/abusive situations and successfully adopted into safe homes.
  • Kids whose cases are dismissed and are re-opened later.
  • Permanency achieved – Stats on length of time this took.
  • Time in foster care
  • Number of foster care placements
  • Stats on family of origin reunification and how often these cases returned to court.

For statistical data collection I plan on having a “Contents” sheet with the above requested statistics in a folder. Each report gathered will be titled and separated by paper clips in a folder for statistical reports 💼 💼 💼

Task SEVEN – Timeline

7️⃣

  • Evaluation timeframe from start to finish: October 30th through November 15th, 2023 📅
  • Surveys will be sent via email beginning Monday, October 30th and Friday, November 3rd.  Surveys will be sent to the Juvenile Domestic Relations (JDR) Court Judge, 5 Guardian ad Litem (GALs), 10 Department of Social Services (DSS) workers, NNCASA Director & Advocate Coordinator, and between 10-15 volunteer advocates. Requested return date on the surveys will indicate, “as soon as possible but no later than Friday, November 10th.” 📅 📅 📅
  • Meeting scheduled with the Northern Neck CASA Director and Advocate Coordinator on Tuesday, October 31st at 1 p.m. (Follow up meeting scheduled tentatively for Thursday, November 2nd at 1 p.m. with the NNCASA office assistant, if needed) 📆 📆 📆.

10/31/23 – This day will include gathering database statistics (45-60 minutes) and conducting two individual interviews (20-30 minutes each). Meeting to conclude by 3 p.m. 🕒 🕒 🕒.

11/2/23 – If needed, this day will include gathering additional statistics and take a maximum of 30 minutes time ⏰ ⏰ ⏰.

  • Meeting with the Judge scheduled tentatively during the week of November 6th, with possible dates being Mon. 11/6, Tues. 11/7 or F 11/10 in the afternoon to be determined pending Judge’s schedule. Individual interview with the Judge scheduled for 45 – 60 minutes ⌚ ⌚ ⌚.
  • Individual interviews with GALs, DSS workers and NNCASA Volunteers to be conducted everyday and at any/all times that schedules allow, from Monday 11/6 through Wednesday 11/15 ✅ ✅ ✅

😅 😅 😅

Task EIGHT – Findings

8️⃣

          The results of this evaluation, done on CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocates) program in eastern rural Virginia, conclusively point to the programs overall success. As a small office, with only three part-time, paid staff members and 16 volunteer advocates, this CASA program has stayed busy for over 18 years and has steadily grown in that time regarding community interest and support, volunteer power and community involvement. Although there are places to improve, the results of this evaluation overwhelmingly indicate that CASA benefits the stakeholders who participated in this evaluation 🕵🏻‍♂️.

          Participating stakeholders provided feedback via responses to digital surveys (anonymously) and responses given via face-to-face interviews. The participating stakeholders included six advocate volunteers, three staff, 5 Guardian ad Litem (GAL), and the sitting judge for the 5-county Juvenile and Domestic Relations (JDR) Court jurisdiction. The content of stakeholder response stayed consistent across in-person versus anonymous feedback ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔.

          The results of this evaluation 🕵🏻‍♂️ reveal the sitting JDR judge’s appreciation and high opinion of the work that CASA does, not only across the country but especially his jurisdiction. The judge stated that he values CASA as an indispensable neutral party that can bridge the gaps in communication that can easily happen with high GAL caseloads and very busy court dockets. The judge added that “JDR cases can be so extremely complex but more importantly, consequential for the kids,” and that he often depends on the CASA report to help fill in gaps that help him make important decisions about the best interest of the child/children. The judge’s only criticism of CASA was that sometimes the advocate volunteer’s reports contain irrelevant information in the form of praising foster parents, or information about the child/children that skirts objectivity 🕵🏻‍♂️.

          The consensus within GAL responses is that CASA is unquestionably valued for its work. Across the board, the GALs agreed that CASA helped to facilitate the, “behind the scenes” gathering of helpful information that they often have no time to delve into. The criticism of CASA from GALs consisted of court report submitting times and failing to coordinate with the GAL resulting in doubling up on visits, etc. These criticisms were light on importance, especially in failing to coordinate. The staff and volunteer advocates agreed for the most part, that more training as well as targeted training on specific issues could be beneficial 🕵🏻‍♂️.

Data results indicated that four out of every five children serviced by this CASA office, upon their CASA case closure, were living in a safer and healthier environment than they had been previously been living in upon entry into the CASA program 🕵🏻‍♂️.

Conclusions ✏ ✏ ✏

          The evaluation concludes that this CASA program is running as effectively as a program can run with some exceptions being minor training and policy and procedure adjustments.  Stakeholders conclusively and overwhelmingly indicated, via survey responses and in-person interviews, their position that this CASA program is effective at serving the best interest of the child/children. Stakeholders conclusively feel that this program is a benefit to their respective positions which is ultimately figuring out to the best of their ability, what the best interest is 🎯.

           All stakeholders agreed that targeted advocate training on such subjects as Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Law/Family Law, on remaining objective, and on better communication between parties (stakeholders) – would all be beneficial to the overall effectiveness of this program 🤝🏻.

          This evaluator has come to the clear conclusion that this CASA program, although by far a lower-volume service area relative to many thriving CASA offices in more densely populated areas, is running as effectively as its mission states ✅. Alignment of the best interest of the child with this CASA program’s reputation, stated effectivity, and usefulness within the stakeholder community, appears to be intact and thriving ✅. The best interest of the child/children can be subjective only to a certain and limited extent, although there are fundamental standards of best interest of the child/children which this CASA abides by. Ingbar (2023).

Implications 📢

           The implication of this evaluation is that this CASA office, depending on changes in demographics of the area in the coming years, is in a good position to expand the program when the need should occur. Also implicated is the benefit of continuing as currently operating besides adding more training ✔ ✔ ✔.

⭐ Recommendations. It is recommended that this CASA program enlist law professionals, such as Guardian ad Litems, Court Appointed Attorneys, Judges, and Department of Social Services Directors to hold targeted trainings for advocates. It is also recommended that CASA staff hold more trainings on ways to stay objective in report writing and in communication with all parties involved when dealing with difficult cases. In addition to this, CASA staff is recommended to bring in professional CASA trainers such as psychologist/trauma experts, Social workers who are used to being on the front lines of difficult family challenges – essentially more applicable training ⭐.

Program Goals and Objectives. Program goals and objectives as viewed by this evaluation is to keep to current policy and procedure with addition of more advocate volunteer training. Short term goal for this office is to expand as can when able to bring in a fourth staff member to help with additional training as soon as possible. Long term goal for this CASA office is to work towards getting the four out of five children up to five out of five 🌈.

References

Brocious, H., Trawver, K., & Griffin, R. (2021). Supporting and Expanding Statewide CASA Programs. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 72(2), 41-58.

Ingber, H. (2023). Between the law and itself: An examination of the best interests of the child standard in the New York city family court. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, 20(3), 481-494.

Katz, C., Moles, K., Grauwiler, P., & Post, S. (2019). The Context-Specific Service Provision of CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate program). Child Welfare, 98(2), 63.

Task NINE – Reflection Letter

9️⃣


After reading the description of this course, ‘Program Development, Implementation and
Funding,’ the meaning was still a bit unclear to me; I’m not sure why as the meaning is
literally contained in the title, but there I was ✨.

Fast forward to now, almost 4 months later, and hindsight tells me that I wasn’t actually unclear. I knew this to be a big topic and couldn’t begin to understand how the 3 pieces – development, implementation, and funding – applied to human services programs, could be taught comprehensively in one 4-month course. Although I’ve gained much clarity since the beginning of the course, I’m in awe and honestly a bit intimidated by this subject. I do have a new appreciation and respect for all that goes into human services program development, implementation, and funding…. and here I am ✨.

What Learned and How 🔎
Number 1: The importance of planning when undertaking an evaluation in which many
different types of stakeholders will be involved. Two parts of the planning process that
became glaringly important during this course were the importance of having a solid
understanding of the bottom-line purpose of the evaluation, and gathering of information
(how, what, where & who)✨.

The ‘Timeline’ assignment (Task 7) highlighted the
importance of professionalism, specifically organization and timing. The importance of
these pieces was solidified by having to actually apply them to a real evaluation, rather
than a hypothetical one. For instance, when meeting with the district judge of a Juvenile
and Domestic Relations court, I was especially thankful to have been organized and
prepared. Through this experience, which I wouldn’t have likely had if not for this course, it was/is clear to me how unbelievably embarrassing as well as disrespectful to
his honor’s time, had I been unorganized and/or unprepared ✨.


Number 2: The psychological piece that runs through program evaluation, including ethical
concerns and standards, dysfunctional attitudes, role conflicts, misuse of information,
biases, and philosophical assumptions (2011. Posavac, Pgs. 93, 38, 95, 40, 104 & 162) ✨.

Whether from the evaluator’s perspective or the staff or the stakeholders, I’ve learned
that the subject of program evaluation is typically going to come with at least some
misconception, mistrust, defensiveness, and/or manipulation. This psychological piece
plays into the above, first item learned: the importance of planning and preparation. What
I learned in doing the evaluation is that the staff at the program I evaluated, fully
expected me to be knowledgeable about their program including the history and the
purpose of their mission overall. Additionally, being busy professionals in a career with a
heavy subject matter (child welfare), I was acutely aware of how much I did not know
about the front-lines difficulty of their work, and I think this was obvious. Had I not been
tasked with meeting staff and other stakeholders in person face to face and via telephone,
I would not have learned this like I did ✨.


Research Methods 🔬
Naively (and ideally), in the beginning of the course I thought that one of the research methods
I’d use was a focus session with at least 3-5 of the volunteers of the program I evaluated.
As I got into scheduling interviews and coordinating surveys, I soon realized that it
might’ve been a little too optimistic on my part to think this would be easy to schedule.
Self-surveys, in-person interviews and data collection ended up being the research
methods I used to complete my evaluation. A resource I found to be most useful to TASK 9 4
organizing and setting up my research methods is the Springer Publishing Connect
website: https://connect.springerpub.com/content/book/978-0-8261-7284-6/chapter/ch01
as well as Survey Monkey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/

The Role of Evaluation in the Human Services Field ✅
Social psychology has always been fascinating to me. As complex as this course has been, I’ve
found it to be an excellent introduction to program development, implementation, and
funding via evaluation in which social psychology can be put to effective use. “We are
awash in social indicators,” as cited in Posavac (2011, p. 113). Social indicators come
with endless social implication and theory. As far from an expert as I am, I would still
say that the importance of evaluation human services is imperative to upholding ethical
standards with external oversight in a field with clients who can be considered especially
vulnerable.


Questions. ❓ ❓ ❓
I believe my learning in this course is demonstrated in my discussion posts and task assignments,
including this one. Additionally, it will be demonstrated in the E-Portfolio assignment.
The areas I feel that I was most successful, or improved the most is first, the overall
understanding of the relationship between evaluation and human services program
development, implementation, and funding. Secondly, I felt successful in and enjoyed
learning about a “learning culture.” I’m excited to one day work within the human
services field in a position that is effective toward its mission. With this course, I feel
much more equipped to know what that even means and how important evaluation is to a
programs funding, implementation, and development.

🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁 🏁