How to improve public welfare-to-work programs in NJ

How to improve public welfare-to-work programs in NJ
(The research question will be: what are the most effective methods for a state welfare agency to provide or prepare participants for self-sufficiency by looking at the services each state provides)
5pages, 12 font, times new roman
Please use some of the successful studies used in the previous assignment (Literature Review: The California and Oregon studies, etc)
Assignment: Provide an outline of 3 successful public welfare-to-work programs in the country and the detailed methodology used in each of the following studies: The paper must only focus on the methodology of the studies.
1. State the Goal of study and the plan for each program.
2. State the exact data collected: from public organizations (U.S. Census, state websites) surveys, interview questions, questionnaires, observations, etc used in the study, .
3. Indicate the systems used: weekly updates, monthly update, annual or biannual updates and how each study differed in the second try versus the first.
4. Indicate whether reward performance system was used in each study.
5. Indicate number of participants, male , female (and geographical areas used in the study)
6. State the detailed outcomes of each study
7. State whether or not one or multiple programs were studied in one research
8. Conclusion: How the three studies/programs address the issues of welfare-to-work clients and how it will help in improving welfare-to-work in nj.
Example of how the assignment should be

METHODOLOGY
The methodology for this analysis examines the “best practices” offered in several
homeless shelter operations found through the literature survey, as a basis for evaluating the
homeless shelter operations that are the subject of this study. These “best practice” examples
include the recommendations made for the Massachusetts Emergency Assistance Program, the
performance based system developed by HELP USA in New York City, and the Columbus
Model.

Program 1: Massachusetts Emergency Assistance Program
In developing recommendations for a new approach for Massachusetts’ Emergency
Assistance (EA) Program, Culhane and Bryne (2010), offer four guiding principles for an
effective emergency assistance program:
1. The main goal of the system should be the use of housing stabilization to promote self sufficiency.
2. There should be flexibility in the system, rather than a “one size fits all” approach in the
utilization of resources, so that the right level of assistance is provided to the families.
3. There needs to be optimal EA resource use and the avoidance of the overutilization of
resources in meeting the families’ needs, i.e. as the authors put it, don’t put the family on
life support if they only need an aspirin.
4. Finally, acceptance of the fact that the EA system cannot be expected to have sole
responsibility for making sure that the families are able to achieve housing stabilization
and self-sufficiency, rather, the families will need access to community-based social and
46
health services and that the EA program should be partnered with other organizations to
help families achieve housing stabilization.

Program 2: HELP USA
When shifting to a performance-based management system, HELP USA, (National
Alliance to End Homelessness, 2007) developed a new performance monitoring system that
allowed senior management and site directors to track the performance of each HELP site across
key areas. HELP, a New York City-based not-for-profit organization provides homeless services
and operates affordable housing, instituted a system to track housing placements, length of stay,
job placements, security incidents, unit availability, work order/unit repair status and other key
performance indicators at each HELP facility. This system was initially updated weekly, but is
now updated daily so as to reflect real time performance at the site. The system is set up to allow
all senior management and site directors access to the same data concerning the site’s progress
towards the annual re-housing goal. Further, HELP instituted a new system of personnel
evaluation that tied the employee’s evaluation, and incentive payments in the form of year-end
bonuses, to their contribution to the site’s performance during the year. The new system was
intended to allow HELP shift to a performance based system, in response to the shift that has
occurred in how municipalities mange, measure, and reward performance of not-for-profit
organizations. The result of the shift to the new system was a complete turnaround of the HELP
facility, changing it from one of the poorest performing sites to one of the highest functioning
shelters in the entire NYC homeless service system.
Program 2: The Columbus Model
In their study of the homeless shelter system in Columbus Ohio, Lobao and Murray
(2005) described Columbus as a growing urban region with a relatively well-developed shelter
47
system. At that time, Columbus, which is located in Franklin County, had a population of
711,470. The city is part of a wider metropolitan area of towns and suburbs with a population of
1,068,978. “In 1986, a coalition comprised of private citizens, Franklin County government,
non-profit social service providers and faith-based organizations oversaw the development of the
Community Shelter Board…[whose] primary mission…is to coordinate collaborative planning
with partner agencies…in order to manage and develop Columbus’ homeless shelter system”
(Lobao and Murray, 2005). Today the Columbus homeless system is credited with high
performance grades based on their outcomes through their homeless assistance programs.
(National Alliance to End Homelessness, 1999)
The Columbus Community Shelter Board’s (CSB) mission is stated as “To end
homelessness, CSB innovates solutions, creates collaborations, and invests in quality programs.”
Their goal is to use their homeless assistance program to quickly connect homeless people to
housing and to provide the appropriate case management and service connections to help them
achieve stability. They are a public-private partnership organization and according to the
organization End Homelessness, the city of Columbus, Ohio: “has consistently performed well
on outcomes [described] in the HEARTH Act, including reducing length of homelessness, new,
repeat, and overall homelessness.” The HEARTH Act requires communities to implement
strategies to prevent loss of housing, assist people out of homelessness and quickly into housing,
and ensure housing stability; communities must also track and report their progress toward these
outcomes. Performing well on these outcomes requires communities to realign their systems to
focus on housing-based solutions and strengthen their capacity to collect data and information
across programs to improve overall system performance. (National Alliance to End
Homelessness, 2009)
48
The CSB statistics are impressive. According to End Homelessness, in 1995, 1,168
families entered Columbus’s homeless system, with this figure peaking at 1,217 in 1997 before
declining to 746 in 2009. From 2007 to 2009, the community continued to reduce homelessness
in the midst of a nationwide recession with 7 percent, 6 percent, and 4 percent reductions in
overall, family, and single adult homelessness respectively during that two-year time frame. In
addition to reducing the overall number of homeless in their system, they also have managed to
reduce the amount of time the families stay in an emergency shelter situation. End
Homelessness reports that in 2009, the majority of homeless families exited the “front door”
emergency shelter for housing within 21 days, and more than 60 percent of homeless families
exited homelessness for housing where they were the leaseholder or homeowner. They go on to
state that only one percent of families and no single adults returned to homelessness in 2009.”
The CSB’s Program Evaluation for FY 2010, (See Attachment A for excerpts from this
report) indicates that for the period July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009, they managed four
homeless systems: a family emergency shelter system, a men’s emergency shelter system, a
women’s emergency shelter system, and a permanent supportive housing system. The CSB also
monitors the following programs: homeless prevention, emergency shelters, (family and single
adult), outreach, access to benefits, transition program, direct housing/rapid re-housing,
permanent supportive housing, and non-CSB funded continuum of care programs. Across these
system and programs, according to their FY 2010 Program Evaluation, CSB has allocated over
$12 million annually. In the previous year they served more than 8,000 individuals.
According to the Methodology section of their FY 2010 Program Evaluation report (See
Attachment A for excerpts from this report) the CSB operates an outcomes-based model,
49
establishing measurable performance standards to monitor the agency’s progress. These
performance standards were adopted as part of their vision to create an overall strategy for
improving the homeless services system, providing an “open door” and working towards the
eventual elimination of homelessness. Their performance standards measure, among other
things:
• Households served,
• Length of stay,
• Housing outcomes,
• Shelter/program occupancy,
• Recidivism,
• Cost per successful outcome,
• Employment status,
• Housing retention,
• Turnover rates,
• Completed vocational/other training,
• Detox exits, and
• Use of client assistance.
CSB utilizes a broad-based community plan called Rebuilding Lives to address
homelessness. The plan was developed by a group of volunteers that analyzed Franklin
County’s housing and homeless services and best practices throughout the U.S. After a two year
planning process a set of interrelated strategies was developed that was aimed at decreasing the
number of people who experience homeless. The plan focuses on four goals:
1. Access: People at imminent risk of homelessness are linked to community resources.
2. Crisis Response: People experiencing homelessness receive assistance to address their
immediate housing crisis.
3. Transition: People experiencing homelessness transition from crisis to stability.
50
4. Advocacy: Resources and public policy support solutions to end homelessness.
As the single coordinating body, CSB brings together a diverse group of organizations to
collaborate and work together as a system rather than as a fragmented set of resources. This
collaboration includes: the Rebuilding Lives Funder Collaborative, the Continuum of Care
Steering Committee, the Critical Access to Housing initiative, the Adult System Providers,
Family System Providers, Supportive Housing Providers, and Citizens Advisory Council.
(http://www.csb.org/?id=how.community.rlus)
Based on the best practices outlined in the Massachusetts Emergency Assistance
Program, the performance based system developed by HELP USA in New York City, and the
Columbus Model, this analysis reviews data from four homeless shelters, Interfaith Hospitality
Network, and The Anderson House, both located in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, Homeless
Solutions in Morristown, New Jersey and HomeFront located in Mercer County, New Jersey.
Their approach to addressing homelessness is compared to that of the models described above.
For each organization, where available, data collected included but was not limited to:
• Annual reports,
• Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 990 Forms,
• Operating budgets and funder’s report,
• Mission statements,
• Strategic plans,
• Goals and objectives for the organization,
• Organizational charts, and
• Tracking systems information.
The objective of collecting this information is to determine how these organizations
operate, and what, if any, performance standards they have established for their operations. This
51
information is then compared and contrasted to the models which demonstrated best practices in
the field of homeless organizations addressing the issues of the homeless to make a
determination about the effectiveness of each of these programs.
Interviews conducted with senior management and staff provided information on the
organizational structure, policies and procedures, challenges that face the organization, how they
plan to address those challenges, how they view their mission, how they measure success for
their organization and accountability, and how well their organization is integrated into or works
with other community service organizations in the area. (See Attachment B Interview
Questions) Comparisons are made between the perceptions of the organization from the
personal interviews and the data collected from these agencies to see if they “walk the talk” so to
speak; that is are the statistics on shelter performance congruent with the picture of the
organization presented by the interviewees.

Summary
In summary this analysis looks at how these homeless facilities address the issues that
affect their homeless clients and how they track their client’s progress from when they enter the
program until they reached some level of self-sufficiency. Critical to this is not just the number
of clients entering the system but the number of clients that secure transitional or permanent
housing. In comparing these facilities to the models described above it is important to determine
if:
• they focus on housing-based solutions i.e. using of housing stabilization to promote
self-sufficiency,
• provide the families with access to community-based social and health services and
are they partnered with other organizations to help families achieve housing
stabilization,
52
• utilized some type of system to track housing placements, length of stay, job
placements, security incidents, unit availability, work order/unit repair status or any
other key performance indicators,
• utilized any type of system of performance evaluation that is tied to the employee
performance evaluation, or
• collect data and information across programs to improve overall system performance.
Performance measure that these organizations may track include, among other things:
• Households served,
• Length of stay,
• Housing outcomes,
• Shelter/program occupancy,
• Recidivism,
• Cost per successful outcome,
• Employment status,
• Housing retention,
• Turnover rates,
• Completed vocational/other training,
• Detox exits, and
• Use of client assistance.
Second Example of How the assignment should completed
METHODOLOGY
The methodology section explains the approach that will be used to answer the guiding question: How does technology in New Jersey public school districts impact standardized test scores? The research will determine if New Jersey Public Schools with more technology have higher standardized test scores then schools with a lower use of technology? Determining the most effective methods to measure the impact of education-technology on student achievement in New Jersey Public Schools is essential. Using the most effective measurements will ensure that the data that is collected and analyzed will answer the guiding question in the most informative and accurate ways. In order to analyze data, statistical information will be gathered from the New Jersey School District Report Card and data from the New Jersey Department of Education.
In order to properly research how technology in New Jersey public school districts impact standardized test scores, we will evaluate how three school districts use technology using information gathered from the literature review of the topic, data collected on student achievement in school districts, examining district technology policies and conducting interviews. The research will focus on three New Jersey public schools including the Franklin Middle School in the Franklin Township Public School District; Central Middle School in the Parsippany-Troy Hills School District; and the Warren Hills Regional Middle School in the Warren Hills Regional School District. All three school districts were chosen for this research because the represent districts with similar socio-economic factors. Teachers in each school district were surveyed about their observations on the implementation of education-technology in their school district. School district data regarding standardized test scores, student drop out rates, and student to computer ratios will also be analyzed to determine the impact of education-technology in schools. The data we analyze will be found in the New Jersey School Report Card. The New Jersey School Report Card contains an extensive amount of data that compares every school district in the state of New Jersey. Teachers from each of the school districts will be interviewed using the attached questionnaire. The questionnaire we are using is a modified survey designed to “gain a better understanding of the technological skills and knowledge of teachers at Norcorss High School (2007 Marlar, Martin, Naile, Parker, Robertson and Webber).”

 

Project Red
The research conducted by Project Red to determine education-technology’s impact on 997 schools in 49 different states used interviews of educators and data analysis to determine the relationship between education-technology and student achievement. The educators surveyed in interviews included 485 principals, 250 technology coordinators, 48 technology directors, 38 assistant principals, 34 instructional coordinators, 25 technology specialist teachers, 23 superintendents, 12 department chairs, 30 curriculum directors, 12 media specialists and 5 chief financial officers (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak & Peterson, 2010, 138). After the research team received the surveys, the data was then analyzed to determine the relationship between education-technology and student achievement. Project Red also analyzed the following data that they collected from the same school districts they surveyed:
? Disciplinary action reduction
? Graduation rate improvement
? High-states test scores improvement
? Dropout rate reduction (Greaves, Hayes, Wilson, Gielniak & Peterson, 2010, 141).

The methods used by Project Red will help guide some of the methods we conduct for our research.

Milken Exchange Study on West Virginia’s Basic Skills/Computer Education Program
Another study that greatly impacted our research was Milken Exchange’s study on West Virginia’s Basic Skills/Computer Education Program. This study examined how Basic Skills/Computer Education Programs impacted student achievement in 18 West Virginia’s public schools. The evaluation design of the study included: “a sample selected to represent the population being studied; data that are valid, reliable, and from multiple perspectives; students as the unit of analysis; multiple forms of implementation documentation; and, the continuing cooperation of the group studied (Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker & Kottkamp, 1999, 21).” The survey used data analysis and surveys of principal’s, teachers and fifth-grade students. Data from the surveys was collected in the following ways:
? Surveys of 950 5th-grade students, using a 33-item paper and pencil survey…. This survey allowed students to record their technology experiences from kindergarten through their current school year.
? Surveys of 290 third- through fifth-grade teachers, using a 99 item paper and pencil survey.
? Interviews with all fight-grade teachers in the 18 sample schools.
? Interviews with all principals in the 18 sample schools.
? Analysis of documents in in each school related to technology planning and implementation (Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker & Kottkamp, 1999, 23-24)
? Student scores from the Stanford-9 achievement test were then evaluated against the data collected from student and teacher surveys.

The study examined this data and analyzed “software and computer availability and use, attitudes toward computers, and teacher professional development and involvement in Technology Basic Skills Implementation Decisions (Mann, Shakeshaft, Becker & Kottkamp, 1999, 27).

Missouri’s e-MINTS Program
An analysis of Missouri’s Enhancing Missouri Assessment Program (eMINTS) also found a positive relationship between education-technology and student achievement. The eMINTS program provided equipment and training to participating schools analyzed test scores and data from over 85 of the schools participating in the study (Brannigan, 2002). During the course of the studies researchers analyzed individual test scores that included students from a wide variety of “special statuses” that included special education, Title I, rural, poor, urban and rich. “The following questions guided the overall study of the impact of classroom amplification technologies on teachers and students:
? Question #1 (Student Academic Performance): What instructional impact does the consistent use of classroom amplification technologies or enhanced classroom amplification technologies have on the academic performance of students in 21st century (technology-rich) eMINTS classrooms…
? Question #2 (Student Behavior/Motivation): What behavioral and/or motivational impacts does the consistent use of classroom amplification technologies or enhanced classroom amplification technologies have on the behavior and motivation of students who are taught in 21st century (technology-rich) eMINTS classrooms…
? Question #3 (Teacher Instructional Change): What differences are noted in teachers’ instructional patterns in 21st century (technology-rich) eMINTS classrooms equipped with classroom amplification technologies or enhanced classroom amplification … (Beglau & Sutton, 2011,ii).“

The questions the eMINTS research team focused on are important to our research as well. Examining the questions asked by the eMINTS research team will provide research in this paper with more in depth analysis of how education-technology is actually implemented in schools.

Methodology Conclusion
The research methods used in this paper will determine if New Jersey Public Schools with more technology have higher standardized test scores then schools with a lower use of technology to answer the question: How does technology in New Jersey public school districts impact standardized test scores? Using the most effective measurements as previously outlined by previous research in other states including Project Red, the Milken Exchange Study on West Virginia’s Basic Skills/Computer Education Program and Missouri’s eMINTS program. In order to analyze data, statistical information will be gathered from the New Jersey School District Report Card created by the New Jersey Department of Education and an in depth analysis of The Impact of Technology on Student Achievement Questionnaire.
In order to examine how technology in New Jersey public school districts impact standardized test scores, research will evaluate how three school districts use technology using information gathered from the literature review of the topic, data collected on student achievement in school districts, examining district technology policies and conducting interviews from three New Jersey public schools including Franklin Middle School, Central Middle School and the Warren Hills Regional Middle School. School district data regarding standardized test scores, student drop out rates, and student to computer ratios will also be analyzed to determine the impact of education-technology in schools. The data we analyze will be found in the New Jersey School Report Card. The New Jersey School Report Card contains an extensive amount of data that compares every school district in the state of New Jersey.

 

 

ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!

 

 

You can place an order similar to this with us. You are assured of an authentic custom paper delivered within the given deadline besides our 24/7 customer support all through.

 

[order_calculator]