| Course | SWG 623 Program Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Program evaluation plan |
| Length | About 863 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | Master of Social Work |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for SWG 623 Module 6
Are Families Stronger? An Outcome Evaluation Plan for the Strong Roots Program
Student Name
Master of Social Work, Arizona State University
SWG 623: Program Evaluation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Are Families Stronger? An Outcome Evaluation Plan for the Strong Roots Program
Program Description
Strong Roots (illustrative) serves about 120 families a year at a Phoenix family center. Parents of children ages 3 to 12 attend an eight-week bilingual parenting group and receive monthly home visits, links to basic resources and quarterly family nights. The program aims to strengthen protective factors that lower the risk of child maltreatment. Its funder has asked whether the program achieves its intended short-term outcomes.
Purpose and Evaluation Questions
The evaluation is an outcome evaluation with a small process component. It will answer two questions. First, do parents who complete the eight-week group show greater gains in protective factors and greater reductions in parenting stress than parents waiting to begin? Second, how do parents describe the program's effects on their families, and what barriers to participation do they report? The answers will guide program improvement and the funder's renewal decision (Grinnell et al., 2019).
Objectives
Two SMART objectives guide the evaluation: when the group's final session ends, at least 70% of completing parents will show an increase on the Protective Factors Survey total score; and by the end of the group, at least 60% will report lower parenting stress than at intake (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018).
Design
The evaluation uses a quasi-experimental pre-post design with a waitlist comparison group. Because demand exceeds capacity, families placed on the waitlist complete the same measures at the time of their referral and again eight weeks later, before starting the program. Setting the two groups' changes side by side helps show how much improvement the program itself produced, beyond what time alone would bring. Random assignment is not ethical or practical here, since the center serves families in order of referral and urgency.
Data Collection
This is the most critical section of the plan.
Quantitative measures. Parents will complete the Protective Factors Survey, a self-report measure developed to assess protective factors against child maltreatment, including family functioning, emotional support, concrete support and nurturing and attachment, which showed good reliability and validity in its development (Counts et al., 2010). Parents will also rate parenting stress on a validated brief scale chosen with the clinical supervisor. Both measures are available in English and Spanish.
Timing. Program participants complete measures at the first group session and the last group session. Waitlist families complete them at referral and eight weeks later.
Administration. A family support specialist who does not lead the participant's group will administer the surveys, reading items aloud when a parent requests it, so that literacy does not affect responses. Surveys take about 15 minutes and are completed on paper or a tablet.
Qualitative data. A trained graduate assistant will conduct 30-minute semi-structured interviews with 12 parents after the program, asking what changed for their families, what helped and what made attending difficult. With parents' permission, each interview will be audio-recorded and typed up word for word.
Program records. Attendance, home visits completed and resource referrals will be pulled from the center's database to describe how much of the program each family received.
| Data source | What it measures | When | Who collects |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protective Factors Survey | Protective factors | Start and end, or referral and eight weeks | Specialist not leading the group |
| Parenting stress scale | Parenting stress | Same as above | Same as above |
| Semi-structured interviews | Perceived change and barriers | After the program | Graduate assistant |
| Program records | Dosage and participation | Ongoing | Program coordinator |
Sampling
For the quantitative component, the plan uses a census of all families who enroll in the evaluation year, about 120, rather than a sample, since the program is small enough to include everyone. The waitlist comparison group will include all families placed on the waitlist during the same period, expected to be about 40. A power check suggests that groups of this size can detect a moderate difference in change scores but may miss small effects, a limitation the report will state.
For interviews, the plan uses purposive sampling to select 12 parents who reflect the range of participants: six Spanish-speaking and six English-speaking, including at least three parents who attended fewer than half of the sessions. Including low attenders is deliberate, since they can best describe barriers. Interviews will continue until no new themes appear, up to 15 parents if needed.
Data Analysis
Change scores on each measure will be compared between groups using independent-samples t-tests, and within-group change will be tested with paired t-tests. Results will be reported by language group. Interview transcripts will be coded for themes by two coders who will meet to resolve differences.
Ethics and Cultural Responsiveness
Participation in the evaluation is voluntary and will not affect services. Parents will give informed consent in their preferred language, data will be stored on a secure server without names and the plan will be reviewed by the university's institutional review board. The evaluation team will include Spanish-speaking staff, share findings with parents at a family night and invite their interpretation, consistent with culturally responsive evaluation practice.
Reporting and Use
Findings will be shared in a short report to the funder, a one-page summary for staff and a presentation to families, with recommendations for improving attendance and outcomes.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). Writing SMART objectives (Evaluation Brief No. 3b). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief3b.pdf
Counts, J. M., Buffington, E. S., Chang-Rios, K., Rasmussen, H. N., & Preacher, K. J. (2010). The development and validation of the protective factors survey: A self-report measure of protective factors against child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(10), 762-772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.03.003
Grinnell, R. M., Jr., Gabor, P. A., & Unrau, Y. A. (2019). Program evaluation for social workers: Foundations of evidence-based programs (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Reading the SWG 623 Module 6 assignment instructions
The Written Evaluation Plan is the 40-point paper in SWG 623, due at the end of Week 6, Module 6, Managing and Making Decisions with Data. Design a small evaluation plan that aligns with the goals, objectives and needs of the program in the case scenario posted in Canvas, integrating what you have learned across the course. Follow the outline in Canvas with subheadings, answer every part in narrative form rather than bullet points and give the most detail to the data collection and sampling subsection. Tables are welcome. The paper runs 6 to 8 double-spaced pages including references, in APA format; the cover sheet does not count and no abstract is needed. Check the Canvas outline before drafting.
How this SWG 623 Module 6 example is built
The sample follows a standard evaluation plan structure with a subheading for each part and narrative answers. It describes the program, states two evaluation questions and two SMART objectives and justifies a quasi-experimental design with a waitlist comparison. The data collection section, the longest, names each measure with its validation source, sets timing, explains who administers surveys and why and adds interviews and program records, summarized in a table. The sampling section justifies a census and a purposive interview sample. Short sections on analysis, ethics and reporting complete the plan. The program is labeled illustrative. Margin notes highlight where the plan gives reasons rather than defaults.
Reading the SWG 623 Module 6 grading rubric
Instructors grading the 40-point plan look for alignment between the program's goals, the evaluation questions and the design, and they weight the data collection and sampling section most heavily. Strong plans name specific, validated measures, explain timing and administration and justify the sampling approach with its limits. Plans lose points when they use bullet points instead of narrative, when measures are vague, when sampling is not explained, when the design does not fit the program or when ethics and cultural responsiveness are missing. Exceeding or falling short of 6 to 8 pages and weak APA formatting also cost points. Plans that admit their limits, such as sample size, read as more credible than plans that claim certainty.
SWG 623 Module 6 help with common mistakes
Start by restating the program's goals in your own words. Write two evaluation questions that a funder would care about. Choose a design you can defend and say why stronger designs are not feasible. Spend the most time on data collection: measures, timing, who collects and how. Explain your sampling choices and their limits. Use a table to summarize data sources. Write in narrative paragraphs under the outline's subheadings. If choosing measures feels hard, the desk can help you find validated tools. Keep within 6 to 8 pages. Draft the data collection section first, since it carries the most weight, then build the rest of the plan around it.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More SWG 623 and Master of Social Work sample papers
- SWG 623 Module 2: Logic Model Assignment: A Family-Strengthening Program at a Phoenix Family Center
- SWG 573 Module 6: Interview and Analysis Paper: An Older Adult's Experience of Aging Policy
- SWG 571 Module 12: Intervention and Treatment Plan Paper: Three Interventions for a Widowed Older Man
- SWG 632 Module 2: Field Placement Ethical Dilemma Case Study: A Sobriety Rule at a Shelter
SWG 623 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free SWG 623 Module 6 sample paper?
The full written evaluation plan for an illustrative family program is on this page.
Which section of the SWG 623 evaluation plan matters most?
Data collection and sampling, which the syllabus says needs the most detail.
How long is the SWG 623 evaluation plan?
Six to eight double-spaced pages including references.
What is a waitlist comparison group?
Families waiting to start a program who complete the same measures, helping separate program effects from change over time.
What does the Protective Factors Survey measure?
Protective factors against child maltreatment, such as family functioning, support and nurturing.