Chi And Middaugh 2011 Case Study

1. Would you describe this study as a process evaluation, outcome evaluation, or does it have characteristics of both?

This program evaluation has characteristics of both process evaluation and outcome evaluation. Chi and Middaugh (2005) tell us that they felt it was necessary to examine the program’s process and implementation before they could adequately assess the outcomes it produced. The process evaluation dealt mostly with explaining the program consisted of a facilitator, chosen from members of the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, who work closely with a teacher and their fifth-grade students. Together they would meet regularly and engage in discussions as well as other activities such as conduct mock trials, visit facilities
What are the goals of the L.E.A.D. program? (The program itself, not the evaluation.)

In the narrative of the report Chi and Middaugh (2005) explain that the overall purpose of the program is to develop students who are responsible decision-makers, who are tolerant of others and motivated to continue with their education with a desire to become productive members of society. In page 4 of their report Chi and Middaugh (2005) list the goals of Project L.E.A.D. as follows:
1. Help students understand the social, personal, and legal consequences of common juvenile offenses.

2. Build positive relationships between students and legal
Does the program evaluation provide a description of the context in which the L.E.A.D. Program operates?

The evaluation does provide a description of the program in the context in which it operates. Project L.E.A.D. is implemented in fifth grade classrooms in communities with low academic performance and elevated school dropout rates, which are also plagued by poverty, gang activity, and high juvenile crime rates (Chi & Middaugh, 2005).

5. Why did this evaluation cover a two year timeline? What was accomplished in year one as opposed to year two?

Due to a very limited number of formal evaluations regarding law-related education, the evaluators spent the first year conducting preliminary evaluation work and ensuring they understood the program, what the goals of the intervention were, and how it was implemented (Chi & Middaugh, 2005). The second year was used to conduct observations and collect outcome data that would be used in the formal evaluation report (Chi & Middaugh, 2005). Chi and Middaugh (2005) report that the first year they identified six classrooms with teachers who were already acquainted with the Project L.E.A.D. program, and also established five comparison classrooms, with comparable student demographics, to serve as the control group. However, due to scheduling issues the evaluators were only able to obtain complete pre-post surveys and conduct focus group discussions with only four of the L.E.A.D. classrooms (Chi & Middaugh, 2005). During the second