Program
Program Evaluation
FRIT 8435
Spring 2011
Group Members:
Bonita Castleberry
Jennifer Edwards
Stephanie Hieber
1
Table of Contents
Executive
Summary…………………………………………………………………3
Introduction………………………………………………………………
……………5
Focus of the
Evaluation……………………………………………………………8
Presentation of Evaluation
Results…………………………………………...12
Conclusions and
Recommendations…………………………………………13
Appendices…………………………………………………………………
…………..16
2
Executive Summary
program evaluation:
3
(PBIS) to a school that does not use Positive Behavioral
school?
questions. Office referral forms were reviewed and staff members were
and questionnaires.
Findings
In third through fifth grade there has been a slight increase in student
seem to support the program and its continuation. The one negative
4
Elementary School since money is not allocated from the original grant
5
framework that was developed by the United States Department of
other schools nationwide. They felt PBIS would be a good fit for the
positive environment. The staff was trained in the Fall of 2010 and the
in the future.
6
behavior, program costs, and stakeholder perceptions of the program.
their opinions about the program and others were just too busy to
complete it.
7
This report includes a detailed description of the objectives followed by
recommendations.
8
Description of the Evaluation Objective
column labels above the behavioral expectations listing all areas in the
earn rewards.
Evaluation Questions
The evaluation questions for this report were designed to examine the
9
referral forms to compare the number of behavior issues before the
10
Brief Overview of Evaluation Plan and Procedures
budget reports.
11
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS) expenses
12
Presentation of Evaluation Results
Elementary School.
13
Conclusions and Recommendations
concludes:
Program Strengths
• Implementation on schedule
14
• Decrease in number of office referrals in grades Kindergarten
through Second
Program Weakness
Recommendations
and reasons why the office referrals are not decreasing as well as the
15
year. It is also recommended that a mid-year and an end-of-year
References
Stakeholder Surveys
16
Appendix A
Referral Results
17
Grade Referrals Referrals Difference in
Level: Prior to After Referrals
Implementat Implementat
ion ion
Kindergarten 34 30 4 Less
First 31 25 6 Less
Second 30 22 8 less
Third 47 46 1 less
Fourth 36 40 4 more
Fifth 45 47 2 more
effective. In grades third through fifth there are actually more referrals
Appendix B
18
Pulaski County Elementary School
Budget
$87.50
After reviewing the data from the budget provided by the Positive
that for this particular school this program is not cost effective. Even
School receives no money from it. The only money Pulaski County
from a local business. All other expenses come out of Pulaski County’s
19
Appendices C, D, E, F
Survey Data
Students 36 36
Parents 36 36
Teachers 36 36
Administrator 3 3
20