University of North Texas Causes of Drug Abuse Among Teens Literature Review Attached is the proposal question. This is the literature review step. Review

University of North Texas Causes of Drug Abuse Among Teens Literature Review Attached is the proposal question. This is the literature review step. Review minimum 10 articles from peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. Use the findings to identify how the research can build
upon prior work (hint: you will probably do something similar as what other
people have done but do something differently that builds on any of the
limitations you’ve identified). You should develop a highly refined research
question. You will need to clearly explain how your
study builds on the literature and how it will differ.View the attachments for more information. Paper 2: Literature Review
Page #: 6-8 pages
Provide a literature review using “peer reviewed” journal articles: What are “Peer
Reviewed” Journals? http://libraries.uta.edu/video/instruction/pr/intro.htm
Item
Research Questions/Hypothesis
• State the research question/hypothesis that you want to answer in your study
• The research questions should build upon the research review
Literature Review
• Review minimum 10 articles from peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. Use the most
current literatures and research articles (If possible, use articles published during the last
five years. However, if an article is significantly important in your topic area, you can
cite it regardless of
publication year)
• Well organized to show a logical sequence to explaining the existing literature and
research about your topic area
Sampling
• Review and critique the sampling methods used in prior studies that focus on your
research question.
• What types of sampling? How are these methods used to gain a sample from the
population?
Measurement
• Review and critique the measurement methods used in these studies.
• How have studies gained information on the ideas that are central to your research
question?
• What is the quality of the measurement?
Design
• Review and critique the design used in these studies.
• What type of research (exploratory, explanatory, evaluative) are these studies?
• What types of designs have been used in prior studies that answer your research
question, or that are similar to your research question?
Conclusion:
• Point out conflicts or consensus in the literature
• Conclusions from literature are used to inform and add detail to the research question
•
Significance of the study: Address how your research will build upon prior work and
how your research will differ from prior research.
What are the major differences in working with adolescent and adult drug abusers when diagnosing
treatment?
It is critical to understand the differences with adolescent and adult drug abusers. If we can get to the
root of why adolescents start using drugs. Teenagers have different developmental, mental, and
physical needs compared to adults, and because this is the time period when most people first
experiment with drugs and alcohol, treatment must be finely tuned to fit the mental, physical, and
emotional needs of younger people. Sometimes the beginning of a substance use disorder in
adolescents is missed because the behaviors are overlooked as being a part of normal teenage
development. By paying attention to the differences between treatment for adults and methods for
helping adolescents, it may be possible to improve the chances that teens will emerge from rehab able
to avoid the pitfalls that lead to more severe problems with alcohol and drugs as adults. Giving young
people the tools and support needed to build a lifelong ability to resist alcohol or drug relapse can
contribute to a brighter future for people of all ages.
1
Running head: NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
A Tale of Two Cities: Examining Nonprofit Accountability
Marcela Gutierrez
University of Texas at Arlington
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
2
A Tale of Two Cities: Examining Nonprofit Accountability
As previously explored, nonprofits are required to demonstrate accountability to the
community and the clients they serve, and program evaluations play a fundamental role in
establishing this accountability. Exactly how, then, do nonprofit agencies carry out program
evaluations, and are program evaluations being utilized to establish accountability? This research
proposal sets out to explore the answer to this question.
Literature Review
The concept of accountability in the nonprofit sector typically refers to the practice of
performance measurement, reporting, and evaluation. However, the term is often used so
generically as to undermine the construct’s utility. Cutt and Murray (2000) provide a general
definition of accountability as “shared expectations expressed through a common currency”
(p.1). Accountability exists on several planes such as the political, market, and administrative
fields and can focus on finances, outcomes, or processes (Brown and Troutt, 2007). Cutt and
Murray concur that all forms of accountability include the following key elements: the obligation
to deliver an account for a responsibility that has been conferred; the existence of two parties,
one who allocates responsibility and one who accepts it; and the formal requirement of a
disclosure through some specified mechanism (2000).
Nonprofit organizations in the social sector face unique challenges in achieving
accountability. As agencies serving a public purpose, nonprofits must demonstrate the impact of
their programs, while their legal status demands evidence on the appropriate use of their
resources. Nonprofit agencies are therefore held to standards of effectiveness (relating program
activities to outcomes) and efficiency (relating costs to outcomes). Traditional notions of
accountability focus on procedural accountability, which reflects the use of fiduciary disclosure
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
3
to demonstrate appropriate stewardship of resources (Cutt and Ritter, 1984). This type of
accountability requires that the party accepting responsibility correctly follow procedures set
forth by the party allocating responsibility (Brown and Troutt, 2007). Performance (or
consequential) accountability, on the other hand, creates mutual accountability between both
parties and to the people they serve through outcomes achieved. This type of accountability
includes information on the outputs or benefits provided in relation to the inputs (Brown and
Troutt, 2007; Cutt and Ritter, 1984).
The increasing focus on accountability has been met with both enthusiasm and resistance
by nonprofit agencies. Socical work researchers have borrowed from the medical field to develop
evidence-based practice (EBP), an approach that involves using research-based knowledge to
guide practitioners, as a method of improving public confidence in the social work profession
and applying funds to scientifically tested interventions (Witkin and Harrison, 2001; Hall, 2008).
The benefits of conducting program evaluation are numerous, and may include helping a
program become more effective, creating a more integrated workforce, and improving both
worker and client satisfaction (Hoefer, 2008). Concurrently, however, nonprofits have
encountered barriers to the implementation of evidence-based models (Giogia and Dziadosz,
2008), while research has suggested that increasing performance accountability may hinder the
relational work of nonprofits (Benjamin, 2008).
Theorists tend to view program evaluation as either a rational process or a political
process (Tassie, Murray and Cutt, 1998). Viewed as a rational process, program evaluation is a
tool embraced by agencies and funders as a means of pursuing a specific end, in this case
accountability to stakeholders such as funders or the general community. Program evaluation can
thus be defined as “applied research used as part of the managerial process” (Royse, Thyer,
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
4
Padgett and Logan, 2006, p.11). A political perspective, however, holds that program evaluations
are also conducted for a variety of pragmatic reasons, such as to compete for scarce funds or to
meet a funder’s requirement. Recognizing that there is much that cannot be measured through
objective research, evaluation becomes a process through which different parties strive to create
a dominant perspective, with the most powerful side eventually imposing its subjective views
(Tassie, Murray and Cutt, 1998).
The literature is replete with texts on how to conduct program evaluation (for example,
see Royse, Thyer, Padgett and Logan, 2006; Fitzpatrick, Sanders and Worthen, 2003; Wholey,
Hatry and Newcomer, 2004). In practice, however, nonprofit agencies vary widely in their use of
program evaluation including different purposes, audiences, evaluators, and data collection
methods and various other variables. Additionally, the emergence of participatory action
research, with its focus on engaging staff, clients, and other stakeholders in evaluation design
and implementation, has challenged traditional models of evaluation while increasing the
likelihood that evaluations will be used to improve programs (Fine, Thayer and Coglan, 2000;
Dartington, 1998).
More recently, increases in the number of nonprofit organizations and decreases in the
amount of corporate contributions have led fiscal intermediaries such as the United Way to
expand their roles as economic regulators and community problem solvers (“Editorial,” 1982;
Brilliant and Young, 2004). Less government funding and increasing donor choice have also led
nonprofits to benefit from charitable mutual fund models as websites are increasingly redesigned
with innovative fundraising tools (Hoefer, 2008). With the continued privatization of social
services, government funding has been found to significantly alter the fiscal spending pattern of
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
5
nonprofits, suggesting that public funding may exert a significant influence on a nonprofit
agency’s ability to provide cost-effective services (Frumkin and Kim, 2002).
Knowledge of program evaluation has been widely recognized as a critical factor in an
organization’s success (Bailey, 2005), yet studies show that social work research lags behind in
this area. Not surprisingly, research has also shown that social workers tend to use conceptual
rationales in lieu of client-centered, research-based, practice or value rationales when making
practice decisions (Rosen, Proctor, Morrow-Howell and Staudt, 1995).
Sampling
Recent research indicates progress is being made in the use of evaluation by human
service agencies. Fine, Thayer and Colghan (2000) conducted a survey of nonprofit agencies
utilizing a convenience sample drawn from a professional networking group to collect data from
140 nonprofit organizations. In this study, members of a networking group “nominated”
nonprofit organizations which were subsequently invited to participate in a survey. From this
larger sample, researchers randomly drew a smaller sample to conduct telephone interviews. In a
separate study, Hoefer utilized a resource directory to mail surveys to all the human service
agencies in a metropolitan area (2000). Both of these studies utilized convenience samples to
explore the use of program evaluation in nonprofit agencies, yet due to the lack of random
sampling or matching, neither of these samples can be said to be representative of nonprofit
agencies across the United States.
Interestingly, Hoefer’s study effectively served as a census of human service agencies
within the Dallas metropolitan area (Hoefer, 2008). Nonprofit agencies in the Dallas area and the
neighboring Fort Worth metropolitan area face unique challenges in accomplishing program
evaluation and accountability. Recent scandals in the Fort Worth area include the burial of
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
6
condemning information in a large county hospital district, the resignation of an urban school
district superintendent on malfeasance charges, and the controversial investment of millions of
dollars into a sporting facility by a city government. The Dallas area has been faced with
widespread financial mismanagement in their largest school district and widespread extortion
charges involving various elected officials and city employees. At the same time, fundraising
efforts have fallen short at local agencies and United Ways, creating concerns of continuance and
sustainability.
Despite Hoefer’s emphasis on a single metropolitan area, no studies have conducted a
census from two distinct networks of social service agencies. In other words, despite the similar
issues faced by both the Dallas and Fort Worth areas, it is unknown how their regional
differences may impact the use of program evaluation within nonprofit agencies. For example,
close to a third of children in Dallas are living in poverty, while less than a quarter of children in
Fort Worth live in similar conditions (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2007). With a population
approximately double that of Fort Worth, Dallas faces more issues related to urbanization than
its neighbor 30 miles to the West. Fort Worth maintains strong cultural ties to its history in the
cattle trade. Dallas, on the other hand, is seen as a cosmopolitan hub more closely in line with the
metropolises of the East. Even in addressing issues of race, racial clashes in Dallas have been
highly publicized, while similar tensions in Fort Worth appear to take place on a more
suppressed level.
Design
A study of thirteen major social work journals published over a five-year period
concluded that only 3% out of nearly 2,000 articles evaluated programs in a manner that could
guide practitioners toward implementing the intervention studied (Rosen, Proctor, and Staudt,
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
7
1999). The extant literature assessing the actual use of program evaluation among nonprofit
practitioners presents with a similar dearth of rigorous research designs. The few studies that
have been conducted on this topic have been limited to exploratory or descriptive methods, most
prevalently a nonexperimental one-group posttest-only research design (Hoefer, 2000; Hoefer,
2008; Fine, Thayer and Colghan, 2000). One study utilized structured interviews to gather
qualitative data on the context and factors influencing the use of program evaluation (Fine,
Thayer, and Colghan, 2000) as well as “in-depth profiles,” or case studies, of four nonprofit
organizations.
There are significant challenges to implementing true experimental designs in this field of
research. There does not appear to be a strong body of theoretical literature identifying the
factors that can be used to predict greater uses of program evaluation to establish accountability,
thus even defining the independent variable–specific funding sources? attitudes? type of
services?–is problematic. In addition, human service agencies tend to focus on local community
issues and are strongly influenced by local funding and service priorities. Therefore, even
defining the appropriate unit of research—the organization? the leader? the local service
network?—is a difficult question. Finally, given the multiple referrals and other forms of
collaboration occurring between organizations, any form of random assignment is immediately
met with multiple social threats to internal validity.
Measurement
Few empirical studies have been produced that evaluate the use of program evaluation
within agency settings, although other professions have developed measurement tools that hold
promise for use in social work research. The medical field has developed a standardized measure
to evaluate practitioners’ use and attitudes about evidence-based practice, the “Evidence-Based
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
8
practice Attitude and utilization SurvEy” or EBASE, which has been found to have strong
validity and reliability in use with practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine.
(Leach and Gilham, 2008). Most studies appear to rely almost exclusively on the use of survey
research to assess attitudes and use of decision-making process. For example, one study mailed
surveys on the use of program evaluation in nonprofit agencies, yet the response rate for this
survey was limited to 57% (Hoefer, 2000; Hoefer, 2008; Fine, Thayer and Colghan, 2000).
Qualitative research methods have also been employed–one study included the use of
telephone interviews to better understand the factors that influenced nonprofit organizations’ use
of program evaluations and the context in which they were conducted (Fine, Thayer and
Colghan, 2000). However, no studies were identified that applied an inductive approach to
explore the decision-making process of nonprofit leaders.
While studies have measured different aspects related to the type, prevalence, and
attitudes surrounding program evaluation, only one study presented a framework that could be
applied to measure the use of program evaluation to establish accountability. In an effort to
produce a framework to guide empirical research into the use of program evaluation, Hoefer
(2008) laid out four criteria to determine if evaluation is being used to assure organizational
accountability: (1) Is evaluation being done? (2) Are appropriately rigorous research methods
being used? (3) Are front-line staff members learning the results of the evaluation? And (4) Are
other stakeholders (including the public) learning the results of the evaluation? (p.3). While
outlining a conceptual model for further research, the literature has not yet presented a
theoretical framework that can produce hypotheses to explore the decision-making processes
relating to evaluations and accountability within a nonprofit agency.
Conclusion
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
9
The literature on the use of program evaluation to establish accountability is minimal at
best. Previous studies provide us with a framework that can be utilized to measure this concept,
and hint at a few key concepts: attitudes, funding sources. Left unexplored, however, are other
factors—does number of employees matter? What about faith-based status? Researchers have
mainly focused on gathering descriptive data to illustrate what nonprofit agencies are doing in
regard to program evaluation, but the literature has not yet proposed an explanation as to why
they are making these decisions or how these decisions influence the use of program evaluation
to establish accountability.
Expanding Hoefer’s sample to include samples from the Dallas and Fort Worth areas
could help account for the cultural and demographic variables affecting the use of program
evaluation. A more rigorous research design that incorporates comparison groups could in turn
explain why some human service agencies use program evaluation to establish accountability,
while others do not. Hoefer’s framework provides a promising tool that could be incorporated
with previous measures to develop a tool that could examine the use of program evaluation to
establish accountability. Therefore this study proposes to answer the following questions:
(NOTE: You only need to come up with one research question for your assignment. However, I
present you with various research questions here to illustrate you the different directions in
which you can take your research proposal.)
1. What are the characteristics of human service agencies that use program evaluation to
establish accountability? (This is a DESCRIPTIVE research question.)
2. What is the relationship between government funding and likelihood of using
program evaluation to establish accountability? (This is a DESCRIPTIVE research
question.)
NONPROFIT ACCOUNTABILITY
10
3. What are the funding sources of human service agencies in Dallas vs. Fort Worth?
(This is a DESCRIPTIVE research question.)
4. Does faith-based status in a human service agency cause an increase in the likelihood
of carrying out program evaluation? (This is a QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL research
question.)
5. What are the decision-making processes of leaders from nonprofit agencies in the
Dallas and Fort Worth areas relating to evaluation and accountability within their
agencies? (This is a QUALITATIVE research question.)
11
References
Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2007). Kids Count Data Center: The Right Start Online. [Data file].
Available from Annie E. Casey Foundation Web site, http://www.kidscount.org
Bailey, M. (2005). Think “results,” not “evaluation”: Before learning the “nuts and bolts” of how
to do evaluation, nonprofit professionals must make a shift from viewing it as a negative
to viewing it as a valuable aspect of organizational effectiveness. Public Manager, 34(1),
8-10.
…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment