The Basic Process of Program Evaluation in Non

The Basic Process of Program Evaluation in Non According to W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998), program evaluation is the â€Å"efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability of a department, program or agency.†It applies â€Å"systematic measures and comparisons so as to provide the outcome of the program to executives who in turn use the results in making decisions for the program† (W.K. Kellogh Foundation 1998).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The Basic Process of Program Evaluation in Non-Profit Sector specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More An outcome is usually a description of â€Å"short or long term effects, including those that were not planned for but occurred as a result of the program’s outputs†(United Way of America, 1998).The basic process of program evaluation involves outcome evaluation as discussed below. â€Å"Outcome Evaluation† (W.K. Kellogh Foundation,1998) According to W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998), there is no specific method or approach can suit all programs in outcome evaluation. However, W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998) recommends that â€Å"it is important to start with the overall goals and outcomes of the program and then come up with a way of measuring these outcomes.† The initial step is to identify outcomes (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998).This can be achieved by creating a team which may comprise of internal and external stakeholders to help you have a wider view of the outcomes of your organization (Herman Associates, 2005). The next step is to think about areas whereby change is eminent in the program. It could be change in clients, in the society or even in the larger systems (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998).The outcomes can be classified into three groups: †initial outcomes, intermediate outcomes and longer-term outcomes† (Herman Associates, 2005). One way in which these outcomes can be measured is by is by identifying indicators. According to Lanzerotti Lanzerotti (2004), an indicator should be something that is visible, audible, tangible or something that can be verified and â€Å"every outcome should have at least one indicator†. Their main purpose is usually to determine the extent to which an outcome has been realized. The indicators can also be compared with targets and benchmarks. In this case, targets are your expected achievements in form of numbers while benchmarks are data from a past program that one can use to compare with a current program.Advertising Looking for research paper on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Logic models can also be used to measure outcomes in program evaluation. According to W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998) a logic diagram is a â€Å"diagram that helps clarify the links between the components of your program design.† The logic diagram is usually composed of â€Å"inputs, activities, outputs, in itial outcomes, intermediate outcomes and long term outcomes† (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998). This diagram can them be compared with the program’s outcomes. Quantitative and qualitative approaches can also be used in evaluating the program outcomes (United Way of America, 1998). According to Lanzerotti Lanzerotti (2004), quantitative method involves â€Å"experimentation and testing, a reflection of changes introduced by a program in numeric form, interviewing a large group of people, and analyzing relationships between hypothesized variables and the outcomes.† On the other hand, United Way of America (1998) notes that â€Å"qualitative evaluation seeks to explain how a program functions, the views of the program implementers and the clients as well as the extent to which the objectives are met.† Some of the qualitative measures that can be applied include â€Å"collection of non- numeric, in depth descriptions of the program, sorting through large amou nts of data and allowing for in-depth study of selected issues† (United Way of America, 1998). The other evaluation method of outcomes is â€Å"effectiveness and efficiency† (Lanzerotti Lanzerotti, 2004).Effectiveness seeks to examine how well the program performed. According to Lanzerotti Lanzerotti (2004), this can be achieved by â€Å"identifying standards, benchmarks or criteria against which progress or performance can be assessed.† On the other hand, â€Å"efficiency seeks to find out whether the cost was worthy the outcome by determining the output to input ratio† (United Way of America, 1998).Advertising We will write a custom research paper sample on The Basic Process of Program Evaluation in Non-Profit Sector specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More If the output ratio is greater than the input ratio, then there was efficiency but in case the input ratio is greater than the output ratio, then there was lack of efficiency in the program (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998).The problem of inefficiency can be solved by looking for ways to minimize costs. The final evaluation method of outcomes is by use of cost benefit analysis (W.K. Kellogh Foundation, 1998).although this method is commonly applied in the profit sector, it can also be applied in the non-profit sector. One is supposed to determine the relationship between the costs and the benefits. According to W.K. Kellogh Foundation (1998) the cost benefit relationship is â€Å"the relationship of the cost of the program to the cost of achieving them.† â€Å"Politics of Goal Definition(Hellriegell Slocum, 2007) Political behavior often occurs in organizations due to â€Å"different opinions over goals, different views about the organization and it’s limitations, different knowledge about dealing with situations as well as how to make use of resources that are scarce† (Hellriegell Slocum, 2007).These are the basi c forces that result in politics of how goals are defined. However, doing away with these forces is not possible because there is no point in life when all people will have similar views. Similarly, organizations are always striving to make use of the scarce resources so as to obtain the required goals. As a result, political behavior must be exhibited as every individual in the organization strives to acquire their preferred results (Hellriegell Slocum, 2007). In cases whereby such situations arise, a manager should not use force to stop such behavior but instead should work to see that such behavior does not impact the organization in a negative way (Herman Associates, 2005). According to Hellriegell Slocum (2007) the political behavior among employees can be stimulated by the actions of a manager. For instance, as Hellriegell Slocum (2007) notes â€Å"in departments like accounting, human resources, and quality control, legal and information systems among others† emplo yees’ performance is hard to measure.Advertising Looking for research paper on public administration? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Thus, leaders processes give yield to inadequate resources in terms of â€Å"pay, bonuses, and benefits† (Hellriegell Slocum, 2007).Other leaders tend to give the political behavior in the process of appraisal a blind eye and assume that it does not exist. However, politics in appraisal is a fact that can not be done away with and which can have several impacts. Some of these impacts as noted by Hellriegell Slocum (2007) include â€Å"organizational goals and performance are undermined; increase political behavior in other decision making processes and expose the organization to litigation if employees are terminated.† In conclusion, program evaluation involves several steps. The first step should be to identify the outcomes. After that, other processes follow. These other processes include: identifying indicators, use of logic model, use of quantitative and qualitative methods, determining effectiveness and efficiency as well as determining the cost-benefit analysis . On the other hand, political behavior is often displayed in organizations when it comes to formulation of goals. It is important for managers to know that this can not be avoided but can be minimized. One of the ways in which a manager can minimize political behavior is by ensuring that the goals are clear and specific. References Hellriegel, D. Slocum, J.W. (2007). Organizational behavior. New York: Thomson Learning. Herman, R. D. Associates. (2005). The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership management. 2nd ed. San Francisco: John Wiley Sons. Lanzerotti, R. Lanzerott, L. (2004). Measuring Change to Make Change: The Fundraising Case for Program Evaluation. Grassroots Fundraising  Journal, 23, 4-8. United Way of America. (1996). Measuring Program Outcomes: A Practical Approach. Alexandria: United Way of America. W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (1998).Outcomes Logic Model. Mexico: Kellogg Foundation

The Deep State Theory, Defined and Explained

The Deep State Theory, Defined and Explained The seed for many tantalizing conspiracy theories, the term â€Å"deep state† in the United States implies the existence of a premeditated effort by certain federal government employees or other persons to secretly manipulate or control the government without regard for the policies of Congress or the President of the United States. Origin and History of the Deep State The concept of a deep state - also called a â€Å"state within a state† or a â€Å"shadow government† – was first used in reference to political conditions in countries like Turkey and post-Soviet Russia. During the 1950s, an influential anti-democratic coalition within the Turkish political system called the â€Å"derin devlet† – literally the â€Å"deep state† - allegedly dedicated itself to ousting communists from the new Turkish Republic founded by Mustafa Ataturk after World War I. Made up of elements within the Turkish military, security, and judiciary branches, the derin devlet worked to turn the Turkish people against its enemies by staging â€Å"false flag† attacks and planned riots. Ultimately, the derin devlet was blamed for the deaths of thousands of people. In the 1970s, former high-ranking officials of the Soviet Union, after defecting to the West, publically stated that the Soviet political police – the KGB – had operated as a deep state secretly attempting to control the Communist Party and ultimately, the Soviet government. In a 2006 symposium, Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former general in the Communist Romania secret police who defected to the United States in 1978, stated, In the Soviet Union, the KGB was a state within a state.† Pacepa went on to claim, â€Å"Now former KGB officers are running the state. They have custody of the country’s 6,000 nuclear weapons, entrusted to the KGB in the 1950s, and they now also manage the strategic oil industry renationalized by Putin.† The Deep State Theory in the United States In 2014, former congressional aide Mike Lofgren alleged the existence of a different type of deep state operating within the United States government in his essay titled â€Å"Anatomy of the Deep State.† Instead of a group comprised exclusively of government entities, Lofgren calls the deep state in the United States â€Å"a hybrid association of elements of government and parts of top-level finance and industry that is effectively able to govern the United States without reference to the consent of the governed as expressed through the formal political process.† The Deep State, wrote Lofgren, is not â€Å"a secret, conspiratorial cabal; the state within a state is hiding mostly in plain sight, and its operators mainly act in the light of day. It is not a tight-knit group and has no clear objective. Rather, it is a sprawling network, stretching across the government and into the private sector.† In some ways, Lofgren’s description of a deep state in the United States echoes parts of President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address, in which he warned future presidents to â€Å"guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.† President Trump Alleges a Deep State Opposes Him Following the tumultuous 2016 presidential election, President Donald Trump and his supporters suggested that certain unnamed executive branch officials and intelligence officers were secretly operating as a deep state to block his policies and legislative agenda by leaking information considered critical of him. President Trump, White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, along with ultra-conservative news outlets like Breitbart News claimed that Former President Obama was orchestrating a deep state attack against the Trump administration. The allegation apparently grew out of Trump’s unsubstantiated claim that Obama had ordered the wiretapping of his telephone during the 2016 election campaign. Current and former intelligence officials remain divided on the question of the existence of a deep state secretly working to derail the Trump administration.   In a June 5, 2017 article published in The Hill Magazine, retired veteran CIA field operations agent Gene Coyle stated that while he doubted the existence of â€Å"hordes of government officials† operating as an anti-Trump deep state, he did believe the Trump administration was justified in complaining about the number of leaks being reported by news organizations. â€Å"If you are that appalled at the actions of an administration, you should quit, hold a press conference and publicly state your objections,† said Coyle. â€Å"You can’t run an executive branch if more and more people think, ‘I don’t like the policies of this president, therefore I will leak information to make him look bad.’† Other intelligence experts argued that individuals or small groups of individuals leaking information critical of a presidential administration lack the organizational coordination and depth of deep states such as those that existed in Turkey or the former Soviet Union. The Arrest of Reality Winner   On June 3, 2017, a third-party contractor working for the National Security Agency (NSA) was arrested on charges of violating the Espionage Act by leaking a top-secret document related to the possible involvement of the Russian government in the 2016 U.S. presidential election to an unnamed news organization. When questioned by the FBI on June 10, 2017, the woman, 25-year-old Reality Leigh Winner, â€Å"admitted intentionally identifying and printing the classified intelligence reporting at issue despite not having a ‘need to know,’ and with the knowledge that the intelligence report was classified,† according to the FBI affidavit. According to the Justice Department, Winner â€Å"further acknowledged that she was aware of the contents of the intelligence reporting and that she knew the contents of the reporting could be used to the injury of the United States and to the advantage of a foreign nation.† The arrest of Winner represented the first confirmed case of an attempt by a current government employee to discredit the Trump administration. As a result, many conservatives have been quick to use the case to bolster their arguments of a so-called deep state within the United States government. While its true that Winner had publicly expressed anti-Trump sentiments both to co-workers and on social media, her actions in no way prove the existence of an organized deep state effort to discredit the Trump administration.