In April 2007 we will post the first installment of a series of blogs we are presenting on the roll of the participant in the research and evaluation process. This “Participant Primer” is meant to demystify the different methods the Improve Group uses while working with human subjects and the data they provide. I’ve never really liked the term “Human Subjects,” it always reminds me of looking at people under a microscope or plot lines in an old episode Star Trek. What the term really means is someone like you who may provide us with information or data pertinent to our research. We thought this series would give you a little more background about why we ask for your help and how we handle the information you contribute.

Our upcoming series of blogs will include information on:

• Focus Groups
• Interviews
• Surveys
• Observations
• Secondary Analysis

For more information about working with human subjects see a previous Inside Groove blog posting under the Evaluation category of our blog called Working with vulnerable research subjects - by Deborah Mattila.

-Staff author Susan Murphy

Posted by admin at 12:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

An article I read in the NY Times about the federally funded Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) stated that keeping a preschooler in child day care a year or more increased the chances that the child would become more disruptive in class. I found even more interesting the study’s finding that this result held up regardless of the child’s sex or family income, and regardless of the quality of the day care center.

What intrigued me most about the article is the criticism that the researchers were unable to use a research method called “random assignment” in their study. Random assignment is a research method where a study’s participants are pooled into two groups, an experimental group and a control group. The experimental group receives the treatment that the study is measuring (in this case child day care). The control group receives no treatment (no child day care). The theory is any differences between the groups are due to treatment alone. Random assignment is widely used in studies with numerous participants and currently is widely used in federally funded studies.

After reading about this criticism and through my knowledge of random assignment-based research, a couple of points came to mind:

• Due to ethical issues such as denying children who otherwise qualify for day care services to create a control group, testing the effects of specific treatments on a certain population is very difficult to do because it may adversely affect children’s development process.

• Random assignment generally does not accurately measure the effects of cultural factors between the experiment and control groups in the results of the study.

• In long-term studies such as SECCYD, it is difficult to control for unanticipated changes in the conditions between the two groups, which potentially weakens the validity of the differences when the two groups are compared.

In short, while random assignment may seem like a straightforward way to do research, especially with large groups of participants, one must be aware of potential weaknesses of this method.

Posted by Guest author at 03:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Improve Group has often come across organizations which express the need for capacity building to increase their ability to serve communities at risk. Unfortunately, many groups do not possess the funding to make their wishes a reality. It is for those nonprofits and other smaller organizations that I am writing today’s Grant Gazing.

This week’s pick: The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Community Services (OCS), will award funds to “deliver capacity building services to faith-based and community organizations through the provision of training, technical assistance, and sub-awards.” This opportunity is called the Compassion Capital Fund (CCF) Demonstration Program – funding #HHS-2007-ACF-OCS-EJ-0035 and CFDA #93.009. The idea behind this grant is to provide funding for capacity building activities for grassroots faith-based and community groups to create a more sustainable organization. Applications are due May 7, 2007. More information is found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2007-ACF-OCS-EJ-0035.html.

A second opportunity from ACF is called the Compassion Capital Fund Targeted Capacity Building Program funding # HHS-2007-ACF-OCS-IJ-0036 and CFDA # 93.009. It focuses on helping to “build the capacity of faith-based and community organizations that address the needs of distressed communities.” Organizations who apply for this grant need to be addressing programmatic service areas for neighborhoods with high unemployment and high poverty rates. Applications are due April 10, 2007. For full details on this grant go to http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2007-ACF-OCS-IJ-0036.html.

Both of theses opportunities include evaluation as part of their requirements. If you are planning to apply, we would appreciate it if you would consider using the Improve Group as your evaluator. As part of choosing our services we would be happy to assist your organization in writing the evaluation section of your proposal.

Posted by admin at 02:36 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

My weekly email from www.edweek.org announced that all of their statistics and data will be accessible over the next several weeks; their is a lot available on their website if school-based research interests you. Here is the full announcement:

The doors to edweek.org – your source for the best information on K-12 education – will be wide open from March 19th (that’s TODAY) until April 15th. So while you are enjoying your Spring Break, come enjoy ours at www.edweek.org and see everything premium subscribers see every day.

You won’t want to miss any of this valuable K-12 information, including:

· current issue of Education Week, plus daily updates and web-only stories

· 25 years of archives, perfect for researching issues of importance to you

· all issues of Teacher Magazine

· all of the special reports – Quality Counts, Technology Counts and Diplomas Count – from the Research Center

· The Daily News, with updates from across the country

Posted by admin at 01:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Our current evaluation of Performing Arts Workshop's Artists-in-Schools program involves researching how the effects of the program differ for students in general and special education. A concern of ours is how to conduct our research in a way that identifies and accommodates the needs of students in special education without adding to the stigma of being in special education. According to the National Institute of Health, research involving children demands a particularly high level of care and consideration by investigators since they are not considered able to make informed choices independently, therefore exposure of children to more than minimal risks must be weighed carefully. Although we have conducted research and evaluation projects with children before, we wanted to be exceptionally careful working with students in special education, since they are even more vulnerable as research subjects. One of our particular concerns was that students in special education would be stigmatized in the classroom by completing surveys that were adapted to their needs or by having an adult assist them with their surveys. However, education specialists in the San Francisco Unified School District informed us that students in special education are already stigmatized in the classroom by having additional help and so our surveys would not significantly stigmatize them further. We have adapted our research methods for this project to minimize the risks to all student research subjects, but particularly those in special education:

• The student survey was adapted to gather appropriate information from students in general and special education on the same form.
• There is no text on any surveys completed by students or teachers that indicates our research is specifically about special education – this not only minimizes stigmatization risks for students, but also ensures that teachers are not actively comparing their general and special education students on their surveys.
• Classroom teachers go over the entire student survey as their classes complete it; special education students receive additional help at this time as needed.
• Teachers and parents do not identify their students as being in special education; instead the Improve Group tracks status by collecting behavior and education goals from students’ Individualized Education Plans.

Posted by Guest author at 10:10 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

When conducting an evaluation, we are required to minimize the risks to participants; however we sometimes struggle to identify what those risks may be and how they relate to any potential benefits. Particularly when the study involves issues like the arts, academic achievement or interest in extra-curricular activities, the risks may seem very remote or negligible.

However, professional ethics demands that we fairly weight these risks and be honest with participants about what the risks may be. A training from the National Cancer Institute helped us to define these risks recently. Risks to individuals are classified as physical, psychological, social, legal, and economic. In the process of determining what constitutes a risk, only those risks that may result from the research, as distinguished from those associated with therapies participants would undergo even if not engaged in research, should be considered.

In our work, the most apparent risks are psychological or social. We must be careful that the participants in our evaluation studies do not suffer any social stigma from their participation. Also, we must be careful when wording questions and designing evaluation studies that the process is not traumatic in any way for participants.

Posted by admin at 02:41 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Okay, I admit it - I am what the internet terms a “younger baby boomer” which means I was born near the end of that prolific population era. As such, I am always on the lookout for opportunities that focus on my generation and they are not easy to come by. This why am so excited about the grant I am highlighting in today’s blog. I have not yet reached the milestone to be eligible to take advantage of the purpose of this grant, but it is good to know it is out there!

This week’s pick: MetLife Foundation/Civic Ventures Community College Encore Career Grants

MetLife Foundation conducted a survey in 2005 which defined work interests for a vast source of human capital – the Baby Boomer. As a result, the Civic Ventures Community Encore College Career Grants were born. Ten grants of up to $25,000 each will be granted to community colleges that are “finding ways to unleash the power of baby boomers as a workforce for social good.” This money is aimed at helping community colleges attract, prepare, or place the 50 and up person who is looking to begin a new career in ‘purpose-driven’ employment. The career paths offered by the college must involve healthcare, education or social services.

NOTE: Online proposals are due by May 1, 2007 - for more details and to apply for a grant, visit www.civicventures.org/communitycolleges.

Top download a copy of the MetLife Foundation/Civic Ventures New Face of Work Survey Report click here: http://www.civicventures.org/publications/surveys/new_face_of_work/new_face_of_work.pdf.

Posted by admin at 01:34 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Collaboration is receiving increasing visibility in recent years; funders are requiring collaboration as a way to ensure services are not duplicated and address complex problems while local community agencies see collaboration as a way to broaden their reach.

Last fall we concluded fifteen months of original research into collaboration in five Minnesota communities. These communities were recipients of the federal Safe Schools/Healthy Students grant, and had school district, law enforcement and mental health partners. We had the opportunity to present lessons learned at the Minnesota Association of School Administrator's conference on Friday, March 15. Chief among our findings, and one that participants most related to, is that collaboration may take longer than "going it alone", but there is much greater potential for systemic change when working with a broad base of support. Similarly, it is important that a structure is well-defined, as are a broad vision and goals, but that individual partners have the opportunity to shape the specific steps.

See a .pdf version of our presentation here.

Posted by admin at 10:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Grant Gazing this week is very significant because my topic concerns all of us who are either funded by federal and state grants, get clients through federal and state grants or receive services and programs from these sources. I recently attended a truly informative Federal Budget Briefing hosted by the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits. The session was an invaluable look at the ins and outs of preparing the federal budget and what the current proposed budget by the President means to us in Minnesota.

The following information was part of the “Federal Budget Outlook”, a presentation given by Martha Coven, Senior Policy Analyst from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C.

The Federal Budget Calendar:

WINTER -The President sends his detailed budget request to Congress by the first week in February. The Senate and House consider the President's proposal and begin crafting their own budget resolutions.

SPRING - Congress finalize its budget resolution. The President's signature is not needed because it is not a law.

SUMMER - Congress begins consideration of individual appropriations, entitlement and tax bills.

FALL - Congress finalizes appropriations and other budget and tax bills, as the White House begins formulating its budget for the following year.

The budgeting process in Washington is often considered a bit “backwards” because appropriation amounts are set early on in the process and afterwards the in depth discussion occurs on distributing them. This means Minnesota nonprofit organizations need to be in contact with state and federal representatives now with any concerns over specific budget cuts or if they are planning to launch a new initiative that will need federal dollars.

Steve Francisco, Federal Policy Director for the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits gave the second part of the budget briefing. His presentation forecasted what the President’s proposed FY 2008 budget would mean for Minnesota. The following information is data from the Minnesota Budget Project and shows some disturbing program cuts over the next five years:

PROGRAM - CUT:

Child Care and Development Block Grant -$6 Million
WIC -$9 Million
Head Start -$27 Million
Public Housing Capital Fund -$36 Million
Community Services Block Grant -$40 Million
State and local Law Enforcement Formula Grants -$45 Million
EPA Clean Water/Drinking Water State Revolving Funds -$48 Million
Community Development Block Grant -$71 Million
Vocational and Adult Education -$71 Million
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance -$95 Million
Elementary and Secondary Education -$113 Million

* Data information presented was created relative to the current 2007 baseline funding level and was adjusted for inflation.

The predictions are based on no changes being made to the President’s budget which will not be the case as Congress is part of the budgeting process. However, it is a wake up call on how important it is to be engaged early on in the budgeting process.

If you would like to learn more the Minnesota Council of Nonprofits will be offering two budget webinars in April:

State Budget Basics - Thursday, April 5 (1 – 2 p.m.)
Federal Budget - Thursday, April 19th (1 – 2 p.m.)

For more information go to their website at www.mncn.org.

Posted by admin at 03:10 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Several of the arts educators we work with have mentioned over the years that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was the first time the arts were recognized as one of five core subject areas (including in a recent interview of Perpich Center for Arts Education's Mike Hiatt). However, in a review of NCLB documents from the U.S. Department of Education, very few list core subject areas, and when they do, there are more than five core areas listed. The documents that refer to core academic ares indicate subjects in which teachers must be qualified, and these include English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography.

Furthermore, some documents from the U.S. Department of Education suggest that the artse are viewed more as an enhancement than as a core subject. These include a letter from the Acting Assistant Secretary Ronald Tomalis, in which all arts activities not considered to be "the music" or "the arts" class are considered enhancements. This allows flexibility for schools in providing the arts (including bringing in artists as paraprofessionals into the classroom, the model used by another of our clients, Performing Arts Workshop), but also leads to challenges in truly integrating the arts as a core academic area.

A final weakness is that of the core subjects, only reading and math have assessment requirements, with science to be added in the coming year. States are required to test students in reading and math, and also subject themselves to peer review around reading and math implementation.

Posted by admin at 11:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I often think of Cheerful Givers around this time of year with my boys’ upcoming birthdays just a month apart. Not very long ago the 3 of us were in need of help from local food banks and the community that serves those in difficult living situations. Cheerful Givers is one of those organizations that gives hope to families in need. They “celebrate the lives of poor and homeless children with anonymously donated birthday gift bags” which they distribute through social service agencies, homeless shelters and food banks.

A book about the wonderful achievements of Cheerful Givers titled "Do I Have A Birthday Too? The Cheerful Givers Story" was published last week. The book recounts the compassionate development of this unique organization including biographies of the founders, board chair and president. Also included are inspirational stories of the countless volunteers who have helped make this Minnesota-based nonprofit a national success story.

For more information or to reserve a copy of this book go to www.writingforthecause.com. To learn more about Cheerful Givers please visit: www.cheerfulgivers.org

In 2006 the Improve Group was pleased to donate to Cheerful Givers through our Corporate Giving Program. The Improve Group accepts applications for our giving program on a rolling basis. Twice a year we evaluate requests and select organizations for funding. We anticipate our next funding cycle will occur in June, 2007.

Posted by admin at 03:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Because we are on an email list, we have received several notices over the last few months that the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services and Justice will soon be opening a new Safe Schools/Healthy Students funding opportunity.

Some districts are already planning their applications. In the Richmond, Indiana area, five school districts within one county began a joint effort to seek the funding on Tuesday, March 6.

The grant application materials are expected to be available April 6 and close May 31. We worked with two grantees funded in different years; they had slightly different program requirements between the two funding cycles. We are looking forward to seeing what changes are in store for the next cycle and hoping to work with districts again to help evaluate funded programs.

Posted by admin at 09:51 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I bring you a different kind of notification this week because the opportunity I am discussing will not be available until April 6, 2007. This blog is to notify K-12 schools districts of a new round of funding for the Safe Schools Healthy Students (SSHS) Initiative. For nearly four years, the Improve Group has conducted successful partnerships with Minnesota school districts that have already received one of these competitive grants. Our role has been completing the grant’s evaluation and reporting requirements for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Our firm would welcome the opportunity to partner with any district interested in applying for the 2007 funding round.

Background

The Federal Department of Education provides funding to help K-12 school districts develop community-wide approaches to creating safe and drug free schools along with promoting healthy childhood development through their Safe Schools Healthy Student’s Initiative. This comprehensive program funds local strategies addressing these 6 elements, among others:

• Provide a safe school environment;
• Offer alcohol, other drug, and violence-prevention activities and early intervention for troubled students;
• Offer school and community mental health preventive and treatment intervention programs;
• Offer early childhood psychosocial and emotional developmental programs;
• Support and connect schools and communities; and
• Support safe-school policies.

You can locate the Request for Proposal after the April posting date through the Grants.gov website or at http://www.ed.gov/fund/grant/find/edlite-forecast.html. You will also find a link to the RFP here on our website. The deadline for applications is May 31, 2007. Estimated average size of the grant is $2 million and up to 20 grants will awarded.

Posted by admin at 03:44 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

March just happens to be National Women’s History Month. As a young girl in school I barely remember hearing about women’s historical contributions outside of Dolly Madison and Harriet Tubman. In an article in the Feb/Mar issue of NAWBOtime, the newsletter of the National Association of Women Business Owners, I found a link to the National Women’s History Project. If you have some time to visit this site I urge you to do so. I learned a great deal about who is currently being honored for their work and how to celebrate the power and impact of women in history. I also tried my hand at their “Test Your Knowledge of Women’s History” quiz to embarrassing results. Here is a sample question:

“Who opened up social work as a profession for women, and also won the 1931 Nobel Peace Prize for her anti-war organizing work?”

Do you know the answer? (I should have but I didn’t). Visit this link to find out http://www.nwhp.org/whm/test.php and remember to take time to give credit to the women who have shaped our lives today.

Posted by admin at 12:07 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This week I attended an event sponsored by the Minnesota Evaluation Association. They had invited folks from Minnesota's Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA). I see OLA reports from time to time but it was interesting to learn more about how they work.

They evaluate not only state agency programs, but also issues that might cut across several agencies. Though an audit commission makes final recommendations on projects, the OLA takes requests from various sources throughout the year before the formal solicitation period at this time each year. After the projects are decided, the OLA works independently on their research projects - returning to the legislature at the start of the following year with a report on findings and recommendations. I was encouraged by the independence of the office and the importance of their work in providing facts to inform legislative debate. Interestingly, they noted their awareness that facts will not always decide every debate, value judgments and political imperatives also shape (if not decide)debate.

They seem very aware of their unique assets and niche. Every evaluator would love to have access to the data that the OLA has. Because they are working on behalf of the state, they have access to ALL state data. They do case studies and interviews to provide a qualitative counterpart to quantitative data, but this state data is a major source for their evaluation. Even they face challenges though, since datasets may not be aligned (common identifiers) even WITHIN agencies. I thought of the frustration of all those lost opportunities to better understand state programs and issues.

Evidently, OLA hardly ever chooses to use surveys. Of course they have access to all this great data that so few others have access to, but they mostly do surveys when it is important for them to understand what people think about a program or issue, not to assess the program or issue itself. Their timeframe can also be short for designing, implementing and analyzing surveys. Perhaps related to this, the OLA mentioned that one group they feel they miss out on are the clients of state programs. They also limit comparisons to other states since so much may differ in the environment and relevent variables between states.

OLA reports have certainly had an impact on state progams and issues; it was fascinating to get this insight into how they work.

Posted by Guest author at 12:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)