Research Pizza

My research pizza based on the RIPQA

I think the RIPQA is a mix of qualitative and quantitative data because when you are using the Form A observation tool you're scoring each section with either a 1, 3, or 5, and each observer comes together afterward to discuss the scores they gave and average the scores out to give one overall score. In the Form B section, people are asked to fill out the survey on their own, send it back in, and then meet as a group once overall scores and comments have been given anonymously to discuss areas for growth and set out 2-3 goals for the upcoming year with action steps. 

To me, it feels post-positivist since the researcher, or grant, in this case, holds all the power over what information is collected and observed. There might be a little Constructivism in there since as a group based on information shared in the Form B tool you decide on areas of growth. 

The three tools I see in this are Surveys (the Form B), Observations (Form A), and Focus Groups (Form A and Form B).

This is a dense evaluation tool but I'm excited to share it with class!

Evaluation and my Org

 

I work for New Urban Arts, specifically as their Site Director for NUA Knights, an expansion program at Central High school that started in 2017. This partnership was able to come to fruition with the funds from a 21st Century Community Learning Center (21st CCLC) grant. A lot of organizations in RI have 21st CCLC grants across all youth ages and types of programs from YMCA's to places like New Urban Arts. It's a competitive grant since funding has increased very little (if at all) for these grants and organizational needs over the years have increased. I've, unfortunately, seen many great youth-serving orgs lose crucial funding from 21st CCLC because of this. It's very nerve-wracking every five years when the grant is up and you must rewrite and submit a new application. Especially when it is the main, and biggest, the funding stream for your programs like it is for my programs at NUA Knights (we were luckily just awarded the grant again for another 5 years 🎉).

While you're in those 5 years, 21st CCLC has a way to observe and evaluate the quality of your programs. It is called the RIPQA, Rhode Island Program Quality Assessment, which was adopted and modified from other states using similar tools. There are two main parts to this, Form A and Form B. Form A is an observation tool that assesses if the programs offer a Safe, Supportive, Interactive and Engaging environment for young people. And Form B evaluates the organization itself on; Family and Civic Engagement, Staffing and Professional Development, and Program Leadership. 

While this is mandatory for programs with this grant I understand its importance but do feel it can often be surface level if an organization is not using it right. First, both Form A and Form B require the organization to form a team of key stakeholders to observe and evaluate the programs. Personally, I believe this needs to involve majority youth voices who are involved in the programs but I find that often does not happen, and are more adults in the space. But, if you are having the adults in the space evaluate how they run programs are you getting non-bias information? I think there could be a lot more evaluating of the evaluation (haha) tool to see if we're getting information from this to inform organizations on how to best serve young people. 

PASA (Providence After School Alliance) posted an article about the Value of RIPQA that you can read here if you want another opinion as well.

Understanding Evaluation

I get the idea Festen is going for when he talks about instincts in the non-profit world but I feel it's selling us a little short. Yes, I use a lot of instinct day to day in this work but when it comes to strategy and developing new ideas that's all skill. Is having the right instinct a skill? Sure, but it's more than that, it's creative problem solving, it's design thinking, it's years of practice and learning in the field, AND THEN it's instinct. I also don't know if it's only in recent years that we've been challenged to defend our work. I could be wrong but I feel like most grants that have ever been given to non-profits ask you to prove why you deserve the funding then you have to show results on how the funding made an impact and some even ask you to deliver on certain metrics.

Ok so strong opinions over here just from page 1 😅

I get the sense when Festen talks about what non-profits need to do or should be doing like they've never set foot in a non-profit. I think they make a lot of good points that as someone who was just learning about what a non-profit is would find useful but for those who have been doing the work for a while now this seems like a "no-brainer".

Understanding Research Ideologies

I've never looked at research through this lens before so this was a huge learning curve. I think in my experience I've only ever understood research and data collection as quantitative, which is more numbers-based, and qualitative, which is more focused on personal accounts. 

For me to better understand the three research ideologies I wanted to summarize them first based on what my understanding was (which could be totally out of left field so please correct me or let me know how you interpret them!)

Postpositive-full of neutrality and reason, doesn't take into account personal values and often generalizes while knowing it can't know everything or be certain of anything. Testing a theory/identifying something is happening.

Constructivist- understands context is important, more concerned about the social aspect of people, gives me "leading with" vibes when it comes to research as both the subject and researchers are seen as co-constructing the research. Building theory as to why something might be happening or how people might be thinking.

Critical-reality is a product of power and social relations, understanding values and political aspects as it relates to knowledge, social justice, and transformative change are at the center. Looking at social phenomena with a view to transforming something for the better.

I also really appreciated the character references as a nerd which made these more understandable.

For me, I think I align between constructivist and critical as my research ideologies. I want to work with the community I'm researching as co-researchers, I don't want anyone to feel like a subject. I also think if we're not doing research to make change and improvements then why are we even doing it? But, reflecting on how I have to collect data and information for grants and reports I don't think it's really any of these. Most data I'm collecting is all about numbers and results, not about people or making change. 

YDEV Ideologies round...4?

I think this is at least my fourth time taking this idealogy inventory since my time with YDEV. From it being 3 ideologies and being the only one (in my first YDEV class ever) to fall into what was then called Critical Youth Development to now feeling confident in not only identifying my own ideology but the ideology of organizations and of individual programs as well. For context, critical YDEV, if I recall correctly was sort of a combination of Civic and Social Justice YDEV. When I came back for my MA and Victoria re-introduced this to me and explained the now 4 ideologies I knew pretty quickly I would fall under the social justice YDEV ideology. That's always been my jam, working with youth on social justice topics they're passionate about. This is always my dominant ideology. 

     image taken at BLM march in Providence June 2020

Civic and Positive usually fall pretty close to each other and tail not too far behind Social Justice. Risk, Resiliency & Prevention is always last and is pretty far behind the others. I used to think that was the "bad" one because it just didn't align with how I felt about youth work. But, after a solid 5 (maybe more?) years of being able to learn and explore YDEV within this context, I've learned a lot about how each ideology is just better suited for certain orgs and spaces. 

I reflect on these a lot during my work as I feel personally I am SJ YDEV but that the organizations I find myself working for are more Positive YDEV, again, nothing wrong with that but I've been doing a lot of reflecting on what this means to me. I ask, does this feel ok, am I ok with where I'm at, and most importantly, are there opportunities for me to incorporate my ideology into my work/do I need to?

I ask "do I need to incorporate my ideology into my work?" because it's something I go back in forth on. On one hand, I think about how beneficial this could be to the young people I work with and believe it would hugely empower them. On the other, sometimes I think about the spaces youth are going to need to be just as they are, positive, safe spaces for youth to explore and express themselves. Which brings me to my final question "is introducing/exposing them to spaces that do provide SJ youth development enough?"