Family strengthening program. Evaluation report

 Cojocaru S, Cojocaru D, Ovidiu Bunea, 2010, “Family strengthening program. Evaluation report”, Social Research Reports, vol 14, pp. 3-87, ISSN (print): 2066-6861, ISSN (electronic): 2067-5941.

Family strengthening program. Evaluation report (Full article download – free)

The evaluation aimed at measuring the impact that the Family Strengthening Program run by SOS Children’s Villages in district 1 of Bucharest had on children, families and communities. In order to do this, 125 beneficiaries’ files (86 closed cases and 39 working cases) were analysed. In order to collect quality data, interviews took place with 9 mothers and 6 children and with the program’ staff, as well as focus groups with the beneficiaries whose files were closed, focus groups with beneficiaries from the existent beneficiaries category and focus groups with partners.

program evaluation; impact evaluation; theory-based evaluation; family strengthening intervention; social intervention; efficiency; efficacy; sustainability.
Chen, H.T. (1990b). Issues in constructing program theory. New directions for evaluation, 47, 7-18.

Chen, H.T., 1990a, Theory-driven evaluation. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Chen, H.T., Rossi, P.H. (1983). Evaluating with sense: the theory-driven evaluation. Evaluation Review, 7, 283-302.

Cojocaru, D. (2008). Copilaria si constructia parentalitatii. Asistenta maternala in Romania. Iasi: Polirom.

Cojocaru, D. (2009). Challenges of childhood social research. Revista de cercetare si interventie sociala, 26, 87-98.

Cojocaru, S. (2005). Metode apreciative in asistenta sociala. Ancheta, supervizarea si managementul de caz Iasi: Polirom.

Cojocaru, S. (2007). Strategii de construire a esantionelor calitative utilizate in evaluarea programelor. Revista de cercetare si interventie sociala, 16, 138-151.

Cojocaru, S. (2008b). Appreciative evaluation – a form of formative evaluation. Revista de cercetare si interventie sociala. 20, 42-48.

Cojocaru, S. (2009). Clarifying the theory-based evaluation. Revista de cercetare si interventie sociala, 26, 76-86.

Cojocaru, S. (2009a). Child rights based analysis of children without parental care or at risk of losing parental care in Romania.  Revista de cercetare si interventie sociala,  24, 41-72.

Cojocaru, S. (2010a). Evaluarea programelor de asistenta sociala. Iasi: Polirom.

Cojocaru, S. (2010b). Appreciative supervision in social work. New opportunities for changing the social work practice. Revista de cercetare si interventie sociala, 29, 72-91.

Cojocaru, S., Cojocaru, D. (2008). Managementul de caz în protecţia copilului. Evaluarea serviciilor şi practicilor din România. Iasi: Polirom.

Cooksy, L.J., Gill, P., Kelly, P.A. (2001). The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation. Evaluation and program planning, 24, 119-128.

Funnell, S. (2000). Developing and using a program theory matrix for program evaluation and performance monitoring. New directions for evaluation,  87, 91-101.

Greene, J., Caracelli, V. (1997). Defining and describing the paradigm issue in mixed-method evaluation. New directions for evaluation, 74, 5-17.

House, E. (1994). The future perfect of evaluation. American journal of evaluation, 15, 239-247.

Patton, M.Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods, 3rd edition. Thousands Oaks: Sage Publications.

Sandu, A., Cojocaru, S., Ponea, S. (2010). Appreciative evaluation of training programs. Case study: Lumen Consulting and Training Center. Social Research Reports, 8, pp. 3-76.

Stake, R. (1967). Countenance of educational evaluation. Teachers College Records, 68(7), 523-540.

United Way of America (1996). Measuring program outcomes: a practical approach, Alexandria, Virginia, SUA.

ACM Digital Library Association Rusia; Augustana College, Rock Island, Illinois; Birmingham Public Library; Brigham Young University; Center for Teaching and Learning Resources in Central Taiwan; Central Taiwan University of Science and Tehnology; Chung Yuan Christian University Taiwan; City University London; Dayang International Korea; DOAJ (Directory of Open Acces Journals); Eastern Michigan University; EBSCO; Ecole Centrale Lyon, France; Feng Chia University Taiwan; Find e-Journal, Korea; Georgetown University; Hsing Wu College; Ideas RePEc; Index Copernicus International; Katolinska Institutet ,Sweden; Kungliga Tekniska Hogskolan Universitet Stockholm; Library of Congress; National Cheng Kung University Taiwan; National Ilan University Taiwan; Prince of Songkla University, Thailand; RugLinks Netherlands; San Jose State University; Shih Hsin University; SSRN (Social Science Research Network); Syracuse University SUA; Technische Universität Berlin; The Open University UK; The Tsinghua University China; UC Davis University of California, SUA; Ulrichsweb; Universita della Zvizzera Italiana, Lugano; Universitat Hamburg, Germania; Universitätsbibliothek Regensburg; Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada; Universite Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3; Universiteit Gent Belgium; University of Missouri, SUA; University of Ottawa Canada; University of Tennessee Chattanooga SUA; University of Washington; University Town of Shenzhen, China; Uniwersytet Wroctawski Polonia.