How much did the program improve the lives of participants?

All information gathered from sources must be cited in APA format.
Respond to 4 postings. Your responses should incorporate additional information or ideas, encourage or coach, or add content to the discussion.Please cite each respnse with at least one reference. Thanks
Please, never correct the writers in these DB responses; always compliment, and be courteous. Read the Rubric. Please DO NOT INCLUDE ANY INSTRUCTIONS IN THE PAGE
7.1
1. David
Impact program evaluation and performance measurement vary form one another by number of occurrences. Impact program evaluation occurs on an irregular basis while performance management occurs throughout a program’s duration. Impact program evaluation focuses on the client making changes. Performance management focuses on achieving the goals set by program planes and developers. This would include whether staff is meeting the appropriate number of counseling meetings for example. The outcomes of impact program evaluation will be displayed when services are completed, and clients make changes. In performance management, the outcomes are already created and expected by planners.
Hypothesis testing is testing a question that is asked of a potential program and seeing if it yields the correct results. In a program which focuses on community meals, a hypothesis can test whether free meals can reduce the number of hungry children. In focusing on cause and effect, the program has to answer the questions asked in the hypothesis. Hypothesis can either pass or fail depending on desired results. Continuing on the example, if children were still going hungry with the food program in place, the theory would be a failure.
2. Ashley
An impact program evaluation is designed for a cause and effect relationship between a program and its outcome. It shows that the program is successful or unsuccessful due to theory failure or unsuccessful due to program failure. An example of impact program evaluation is a randomized experiment test.
Performance measurement is different from impact program evaluation because it is ongoing; it addresses general performance issues that are constant over time. An example of this type of program could be Head Start it is an ongoing evaluation for how it helps children for the future and the better future outcome the children will have.
3. Nallely
Impact program evaluation attempts to demonstrate an outcome is attributed to the program and not some other variable. The impact program evaluation establishes a cause-and-effect relationship between program and outcome. It can demonstrate if a program is successful, unsuccessful due to theory, or unsuccessful due to program failure. An example is specific questions designed to address specific stakeholder questions at a particular point in time. How much did the program improve the lives of participants?
Whereas performance measure is ongoing reporting of program accomplishments, specifically outputs, quality, and outcomes of programs. Example questions of performance measurement would include how many clients completed the program? What is the quality of the product or service provided by the program, and how cost-efficient and cost-effective id the program?
Hypothesis testing is broken down into 3 subsections. First a program hypothesis makes explicit the assumptions underlying a human service program outcome. Secondly establishes a framework to bring internal consistency to implementation of programs. Third enables inputs, process, outputs, and outcomes to be examined for internal consistency. An example is analyzing the steps to determine if a hypothesis is supported and being able to identify why a hypothesis may fail.
4. Megan
Kettner et al (2020) states that “impact program evaluation differs from other types of evaluation in that the focus here is on changes in program participants and not on changes in organizations and communities” (p. 204). Impact program evaluation and performance measurement typically utilize the same data. However, impact program evaluation looks at the data through a specific lens to answer a specific question (usually posed by a stakeholder) instead of looking at the program overall. It is also less frequent in comparison to the ongoing evaluation of performance measurement.
Hypothesis Testing is a process of evaluation that determines how effectively a program is meeting their original hypothesis. There are three tracks in which the hypothesis testing might go. First, they’re successful and are meeting their hypothesis. Secondly, they’re unsuccessful because their plan didn’t lead to the desired outcome even though it was implemented according to their original design. Finally, a hypothesis might be unsuccessful because they didn’t follow their original design and therefore the outcomes can’t be attributed to the original design and hypothes
7.2
1. Ashley
The major budgeting systems in human service agencies are the incremental model, political model, and rational planning model. The incremental model looks at budgeting in the past to make decisions. Human service agencies and programs are provided a share of resources determined on what they have gotten in the past.
The political model views the budgetary process as a negotiation. Stakeholders attempt to use political and community support for their preferred agencies and programs to help get the funding. Rational planning model looks at budgetary as a logical steps tied to a community, agency, or program planning process that takes budgeting based on needs, priorities, plans, goals, and objectives.
It is important for outputs to help maximize efficiency for productivity. It is important to have the outcomes to accomplish agency and program goals and objectives. Both of these give results to see if the budgeting is working and if money is spent in good places.
2. Nallely
The three major budgeting systems in human service agencies are line budgeting systems, functional budgeting systems, and program budgeting systems. Line budgeting deals with inputs (revenues) and activities (expenses). Their main purpose if financial control. Line budgeting can be created for either an agency as a whole or individual programs. It represents a plan for where revenues will be secured and how funds will be spent. Line budgeting strictly deals with monetary issues.
Functional budgeting deals with inputs (revenues) and outputs (intermediate outputs, quality outputs, and service completions). Management serves as their primary purpose and are concerned with efficiency and productivity of an agency or program. Functional budgeting is generally created of individuals programs. Their concern is how much funding will be devoted to individual programs, the amount of service programs is expected to return and the estimated unite cost.
Program budgeting deal with inputs (revenues) and the accomplishment of goals and objectives (outcomes). Planning is their primary purpose. Program budgeting is created for individual programs. Although they are similar to functional budgeting they are focused with outcomes. This system shows total program cost, the number of outcomes to be achieved, and unit cost.
Once human service organizations are selected for funding, they are likely to create a performance-based contract or grant. This generally pays an organization or program a fixed price per output provided or outcome achieved
3. Megan
Line-item budgeting is a budgeting system where the program lists out every source of revenue and every expected expense. Each revenue and expense go on a specific line and are calculated for the total. The program wants to see the revenue either match, or be higher than, the expected expenses. This system is “not concerned with other issues such as the amount of service or product to be produced (outputs) or the accomplishment of agency or program goals and objectives (outcomes)” (Kettner et al, 2020, p. 221).
Functional budgeting is essentially a plan “for how much agency funding will be devoted to individual programs, what amount of service or product the programs are expected to produce in return, and the estimated unit cost (cost per output)” (Kettner et al, 2020, p. 221). This form of budgeting breaks down the total allotted income and determines how much product they should be able to make or produce with that money.The main goal of this system is management and efficiency.
Program budgeting is primarily concerned with planning and effectiveness. The system is very similar to functional budgeting, but it focuses on outcomes instead of outputs.
It is important for an agency to understand all three budgeting systems because they each play a part in making a program run efficiently and effectively. Programs should be able to defend their budgeting choices based on revenue, outcome cost, and output cost. Documenting outputs and outcomes is the best way to ensure that the program is running appropriately. This will also encourage more funding sources since they can see from various angles that the programs are running efficiently and effectively with the resources they currently have.
4. Yolanda
The major budgeting systems in human service agencies.
Line-item, functional and program(martin, 2001; Mayers, 2004)
A line-item budget is a method used while creating and monitoring financial spending. Items are grouped by departments or costs to show which areas are using the bulk of the funds of the program.
The line budgeting system will help the program comprehend whether its incoming funds can cover expenses. Agencies can analyze whether a single item will exceed or come under budget.
For example, suppose an agency notices a particular program impacts the balanced budget. In that case, they can pay close attention to that item and monitor trends to see if it affects the budget over time.
The importance of output and outcome performance measures that funding sources increasingly require agencies to include and document.
Importance of Outputs and Outcomes Funders want to see results/impacts (outcomes) and know the means (outputs) by which grant applicants will reach them. They also want to know that these tasks and activities will likely be successful in meeting realistic and meaningful results.
References
Designing and managing programs: an effectiveness-based approach
Kettner & Martin – Sage Publications – 1990
The Role of Outputs and Outcomes in Grant Writing
https://extension.psu.edu/the-role-of-outputs-and-outcomes-in-grant-writing