1

Evaluation Plan Outline

Parenting After Separation Seminar (PASS)

SOWK 677 RESEARCH

Prepared by:
ASONGAFEH NDOBEGANG

November 29, 2013.



2

Abstract
Divorces and separations are not new occurrences in our societies. These issues have been in
the spotlight for several years. This explains the extensive research that has been carried out on
the subject matter. While separation affects the couples, it is even more serious for couples
with children. The separation generally takes a great tool on the physical, psychological and
general well-being of the children particularly when their parents are unable to deal with issues
like child support, parenting, contact etc. The gravity of the situation prompted the family
courts to seek way of mitigating and facilitating the parenting relationship between couples
with the understanding that it will translate to their children. As a result of this the Parenting
After Separation Seminar (PASS) was developed. This program is an educational parenting
program that is geared towards education parents on how to deal with issues relating to their
separation. This program has been running in Calgary for several years and for all these years
there has not been any form of evaluation for this program. Reason why this program was
chosen amongst the many programs offered by Family Justice Services (FJS). This paper
attempts an evaluation of the program. A formative evaluation was considered the most
appropriate with particular emphasis on the process and implementation of the program. It
should be noted that for better understanding of the social problems in question and an
understanding of the program this paper looks at the historical background of the concerns and
the evolution of the program under evaluation. The paper will further discuss the evaluation
approach, planning and design of the evaluation, data collection source and methods, analysis
of data, dissemination of the finding and most importantly ethical considerations. The paper
equally provides an explanation for every decision taken in the evaluation process
3

Program evaluation can be defined as the systematic collection of information about
the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of programs to make judgments about programs,
improve program effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about future programming (Patton,
1997, p. 23).The term systematic emphasizes that evaluations have a clear outline on how
information is collected. There is also a reason for what types of data are collected and why this
data is collected. In other words, there is a clear purpose for the evaluation. The use of the
words activities, characteristics, and outcomes highlights that evaluation is not only about
outcomes, although this is often considered the primary reason for evaluation. Evaluation can
encompass all aspects of programming. Finally, the definition alludes to three main reasons or
purposes of program evaluation: judgment, improvement, and informing decisions. Judgment is
perhaps the most common purpose associated with evaluation and it relates to outcomes. It
answers the questions: Does the program work or should it be continued? However, evaluation
also relates to program improvement. Results can be used to help figure out what is working in
a program and what could work better. Finally, evaluation can help inform decisions about
programming, services, and funding at all levels of a program.
This paper will be evaluating a parenting education program called Parenting After Separation
(PAS). The Parenting after Separation program is delivered through Family Justice Services in
collaboration with the Government of Alberta, Justice and Solicitor General and the courts of
Alberta (stakeholders). The staffs of Family Justice Services work directly with individuals to find
appropriate solutions for family law issues like divorce, custody/contact, parenting time and
child support etc. The target population of this organization are parents who are currently
married or living together and are considering separation, parents who were living together or
4

married who are separated, parents who have never lived together and anyone who may be
applying to any Alberta court for an order concerning parenting issues (secondary
stakeholders); in effect anyone who is divorced or separated from a relationship that resulted
to children. In addition to Parenting After Separation, Family Justice Services also provide a
series of programs including Court Counselor Services. Family Court Counselors provide a
variety of services at no cost to families who are involved in parenting disputes and are living
separately or apart. These services are offered to people who are not represented by a lawyer.
Services may include: information on options and services for resolving family issues, referrals
to services and programs, assistance with court applications such as, enforcement of child
contact or access, assist with arranging court dates and assistance in presenting the case in
Provincial Courts. The Agency also provides mediation services. Family mediation is a voluntary
process that gives families a method of resolving issues that affect their children. This happens
when parents cannot agree on parenting arrangements during separation or divorce. This could
be very traumatic for their children, however, the situation can often be made less stressful if
families work together to find solutions to their problems. These problems include issues with
parenting time, parental responsibilities, child support etc. However, mediation may not be
appropriate when families are experiencing issues of violence, neglect or chronic alcohol/drug
abuse. Worthy to note is the fact that mediation services are provided at no cost to families
with a child less than 18 years of age and also when one of the adult parties involved has an
annual income of less than $40,000.
More so, Family Justice Services also provides a Child Support Assistance program. They provide
information and calculations on child support amounts for any family law application. It is
5

important to know that before attending court, parties may qualify to attend at the Dispute
Resolution Officer (in Calgary), for assistance with disputes about child support amounts.
To better understand the agency and the services it provides, it will be important to review the
divorce situation at the time of its creation as well as examine the impact of separation on the
many children involved. Based on the 1998 divorce rates, it is estimated that 36% of Canadian
couples will divorce within 30 years of marriage (Statistics Canada, 2000). Using rates based on
the number of divorced per 100,000 married couples, Ambert (1998) pointed out that the risk
of divorce for a married couple in any year is 1.2%. In addition to legal marriages which
dissolve, cohabitation relationships must also be considered in established conjugal dissolution
rates. As the number of couples cohabiting is rising the numbers of common-law relationships
that break up constitute hidden divorces (Ambert, 1998). The estimated divorce rate of 36%
does not include the dissolution of common-law relationships.
When these figures are combined, Ambert (1998) suggests that it is possible that one of every
two unions eventually ends in dissolution. It is also noted that Canadas divorce rates at 2.6 per
1,000 people is the third highest in the world. In 1993 the National Longitudinal Study of
Children and Youth (NLSCY) collected information on relationships from a sample of 31,000
Canadians. Based on this study, it was estimated that 378,000 Canadians began to cohabit in a
common-law or marriage relationship in 1993. During that same year, two third of this number,
that is 253,000 people, separated from their common-law or marriage partner. About 79% of
people joining and 71% of those separating were in their 20s and 30s. Almost two-thirds of
those who separated had children in their home at the beginning of the year. At the end of the
6

year 88% of these mothers and 27% of these fathers had some or their entire children still living
with them (Statistics Canada, 1996). The National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth
found that 16% of children under the age of 12 lived with single parents and 9% lived in a step
family. Because about one-quarter of those children in single parent families lived with a never-
married parent, approximately 21% of the children under 12 had experience divorce. It is
estimated that close to 30% of children under the age of 21 have parents who have separated
or divorced (Ambert, 1998).
The effects of separation and divorce on children have been well- documented (Amato & Keith,
1991; Cherlin, Chase-Lansdale &McRae, 1998; Fischer, 1997; Gray, Herdieck, Smith & Freed,
1997; Lye, 1998; Petersen& Steinam, 1994). Lower levels of well-being across a variety of
domains have been identified, including school achievement, risk of problem behaviors,
psychological and social adjustment difficulties and relationships with parents, siblings and
peers. Research on both older (Aron & Palosaari, 1992) and younger (Call, Beer & Beer, 1994)
children has demonstrated poorer academic performance among children from divorced
homes. Higher levels of both externalizing and internalizing behaviors have been associated
with children of divorce (Emery, 1999; Emery, 1994; Spigelman &Spigelma, 1991). Attachment
difficulties have been documented and in a study of 1725 adolescent, ages 11-17, Hoffman
(1994) found that older adolescents responded to divorce by becoming less involved with
family members and more involved with peers and drug use. Also depression among children is
a common reaction to separation or divorce. Palosaari and Aro (1994 and 1995) documented
significantly higher levels of depression among children from divorced homes. For a significant
proportion of adolescents, the burdens of divorce appears to carry over into adulthood and
7

higher rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse and criminal behavior have been
associated with separation or divorce (Ambert, 1998). Five general factors have been identified
as affecting post-separation adjustment outcomes. These are interparental conflicts, the
adjustment and parenting skills of the primary residential parent, the nature and extent of the
involvement of the non-residential parent, economic hardships and other stressful life changes,
such as changes in accommodation (Blaisure & Geasler, 1996). The issue of inter- parental
conflicts is complex and of particular concern. It is unrealistic to anticipate that conflicts can be
eliminated in most divorces. The majority of separating adults are able to work through their
anger, disappointment and loss in a timely manner and establish healthy interpersonal
relationships with others. However one-fourth to one-third have considerable difficulty and
10% clearly fail to attain this goal (Lamb &Sternberg, 1997). The latter group remains
embittered and actively hostile for many years and are identified with multiple characteristics:
high rates of litigations and relitigation, high degrees of anger and distrust, intermittent verbal
and or physical aggression, difficulty in focusing on their childrens needs as distinct from their
own, and chronic difficulty co-parenting and communicating about their children after divorce.
From a legal perspective such couples are often involved in multiple litigation motions at a high
cost to the system and their families whereas from a social service perspective, there are two
main implications. Firstly, children from these families are at higher risk of post-divorced
adjustment problems due to ongoing parental conflict. Secondly, high conflict situations are
associated with a higher risk of domestic violence between parents; related to this are concerns
about the effect on the children in these families. The above review provides support for those
who believe that the dramatic rates of divorce and separation resulting to unspeakable
8

consequences for the children concerned can be addressed and mitigated in parenting
education programs.
It is from the forgoing that the Parenting After Separation Seminar (PASS) program was crafted.
This program is implemented in every major city of the province; however this paper is focused
on the PASS program delivered in Calgary. The development of PASS in its current state owes a
great deal to the influential leadership provided by Honourable Madam Justice Trussler. The
current program was pre-dated with a two-hour course for parents, initiated in 1993. This
course, affiliated with the Custody Mediation Project in Edmonton, was offered on a voluntary
basis. New and expanded content was developed in 1995. Under the leadership of Madam
Justice Trussler and Dr. Kent Taylor, and with sponsorship from the Department of Justice, the
Department of Family and social Services, and the court of Queens Bench (primary
stakeholders) a pilot project with a mandatory attendance requirement was offered in the
Edmonton Judicial District between February, 1996 and February, 1997 (Brenda, B & Brad, M,
2001). The program was said to have been very successful as many participants other than
those required attending, were referred to the program. As a result a recommendation for
program expansion followed. Expansion of PASS began with the Judicial District of Calgary as its
second site, and after this to seven other regions in the province. PASS is offered through a
contract with a local service provider responsible for registering, hiring and evaluating
facilitators and counselors and collecting evaluation forms administered at the end of the six
hours program. For instance these functions are performed by the Continuing Education
Division of Mount Royal College(stakeholder).Across all regions, over 200 seminars, each of
9

which is 6 hours in duration are delivered each year and an average of 7000 people attend the
program each year (Brenda, B & Brad, M, 2001).
As mentioned earlier PASS is a six hours program offered over two sessions in the evening
during the week at the Court of Queens Bench. At least once every month a Saturday program
is offered. Attendance varies between 20 and 40 per class (Brenda, B & Brad, M, 2001). All
sessions are co-facilitated by two presenters, and often this involves a lawyer/social worker
team and there is a deliberate effort to ensure gender balance in the teams. It is necessary to
look at the content of the program so as to better link the problem and the objective. The first
session of this program focuses on relationship triangle, the effects of divorce on children, and
the effects of divorce on parents. While these themes are extended in the second session, this
component focuses more on legal content, including child support issues, as well as mediation
and parenting plans. A considerable emphasis is placed on mediation as an alternate approach
to dispute resolution.
The program participants/parents are often referred by the family courts. That is anyone who
files in the court of Queens Bench for divorce or judicial separation, or where custody, access
or child support is in dispute. Action on any motion that is filed is normally postponed until the
parent has completed PASS. Temporary exemptions can be provided under circumstances
where restraining orders are required, where kidnapping or child abduction has occurred or
where a unilateral change in child custody has occurred. Parents are equally exempted from
attending if their children are over 16 years or if parties specify in writing that they have
entered into a written agreement where all matters have been resolved.
10

The first part of this paper has provided some context into the program evaluation in
question. As illustrated above the program under evaluation has been in existence for several
years, therefore in its implementation stage. Over time a lot has changed in terms of the
demographics of the target population (gender, age, race, and income levels), technological
advancements, service delivery options, cost and context of the issues being addressed by the
program. As a result I am proposing an evaluation that is formative in nature. Formative
evaluation is generally applied during a projects implementation with the aim of improving the
projects design and performance. Formative evaluations strengthen or improve the object
being evaluated - they help form it by examining the delivery of the program, the quality of its
implementation, and the assessment of the organizational context, personnel, procedures and
inputs. Considering the fact that the PASS program has been delivered for so many years and
considering the changes that may have occurred over this time, I think that evaluating program
delivery, program content and other elements relating to style of delivery, class rooms,
facilitators etc. are far more important to this program at this time than measuring outcome as
would be the case in summative evaluation. Again, the choice of a formative evaluation is
because in the course of PASS existence there has been a number of summative evaluations
carried out which concluded that the outcomes have been positive. In addition to the fact that
there has not been a formative evaluation for the program so far, there is equally a necessity to
figure whether there is a need or a possibility of improving on the outcome by restructuring or
changing elements of the program itself. To effectively conduct this formative evaluation
process I will be paying particular attention on implementation evaluation that would monitor
the fidelity of the program delivery and process evaluation to investigate the process of
11

delivering the program, including alternative delivery procedures. These two styles would
answer the questions: were the program objectives met, will you need to improve and modify
the overall structure of the program, what resources will the program need to address its
weaknesses? It will equally determine why an established program has changed over time,
address inefficiencies in program delivery of services and accurately portray to outside parties
program operations (e.g., for replication elsewhere). Based on the fact that the purpose of the
proposed evaluation is to determine the effectiveness of an ongoing program, the behavioral
objectives evaluation approach will be employed.
More so the fact that this is a formative evaluation for a program that is in its implementation
stage and coupled with the high stakes for its stakeholders I am proposing to work with an
evaluation team. The team will compose of about 6 to 8 members selected from every
stakeholders group that created, manage and deliver the parenting education program under
study. I have also decided to work with an evaluation team because members to be nominated
or form part of the group would be expected to have a mastery of the program in question,
some knowledge about the target, an understanding of the issues being addressed through this
program. The advantage of this approach is to save time and resources trying to train and
acquaint strangers with the specifics mentioned above. In addition it is my believe that since a
lot is in play and the stake holders have higher stakes they can be motivated to ensure that the
entire project is effectively carried out. As mentioned earlier the team will be composed of 6 to
8 members. The stakeholders, organizations and their role in the team will be as follows:
12

I. Lead Evaluator (me) with duties of having an oversight of all evaluation activities to
ensure the evaluation is conducted as planned. Coordinate meetings for the team.
II. Representative from the Department of Justice. Assigned the role of Data Analysis
and responsibilities composed of coordinating the analysis of quantitative and
qualitative data.
III. A representative from Family Justice Services (Manager) and a member from the
Calgary Advisory Committee with the role of adviser with duties to provide support,
guidance and dissemination of results.
IV. Two facilitators (Social worker and Lawyer). Their role will be to collect data with a
responsibility to gather and review data (QA?).
V. A judge from the provincial court or Queens Bench. The judge will act as
community/population liaison and his responsibility would be to coordinate data
collection with community members.
VI. Two individuals from the target population who have used the program in the last
few months. Selection will be random in conjunction with the individuals willingness
and ability to participate till the conclusion of the evaluation. These individuals will
be honorary partners and will be engaged in all aspects of the evaluation. The aim is
to give voice to service users.
It is worth mentioning that the above named team member would be identified at the very
start of the process. This will allow them to be involved in all aspects of the planning, evaluation
and consequently dissemination of findings. In order to ensure that members of this team are
ready for the evaluation, the evaluators will be expected to undergo a short training. Evaluators
13

will be trained on the study design, meta-analyses, specific methodological issues (selection,
randomization, study planning, and study management), collecting and entering data and
statistics (descriptive and inferential statistics, sample size calculation). With this training
researchers/evaluators are exposed to skills specific to particular methodologies, e.g.
quantitative and qualitative approaches, exposure to analytical skills needed to evaluate,
exposing researchers to computer skills in research, expose researchers to training in methods
relevant to issues such as age and gender sensitive research.
The research designs proposed for this study are the descriptive and exploratory designs.
Descriptive research design because it helps provide answers to the questions of who, what,
when, where, and how associated with this particular research problem. Descriptive research
because it is used to obtain information concerning the current status of the phenomena and to
describe "what exists" with respect to conditions in a situation. A descriptive study cannot
conclusively ascertain answers. As a result an exploratory design is used to complement the
process. This design is most appropriate when there are few or no earlier studies to refer to.
This clearly ties with our project as there has never been an evaluation of this nature for the
PASS program. The focus is on gaining insights and familiarity.
It is worth mentioning that the quality of familiarity and insight gained as well as the ability to
fully comprehend the changes that may have ensued, the approach to data collection and
analysis must be suitable for the kind of evaluation being executed. Considering the possibility
of the availability of a wide range of data, a mixed method approach has been selected for this
evaluation. While judgments about writing and improvements in writing are inherently
14

subjective, quantitative data do exist and can be collected throughout the evaluation to provide
a productive balance of qualitative and quantitative techniques. Qualitative observations and
assessments will be derived from analysis of archived documents, personal interviews, and
group interviews. In keeping with a qualitative approach, data collected from verbal sources
(previous assessments and the interviews) will be analyzed and summarized in narrative form in
order to provide a thick description of how the PASS program is delivered to the participants.
A quantitative approach will be employed in analyzing the survey results and in coding and
characterizing data from the prior assessments so that both the previous and new data can be
aggregated for analysis. Financial data will factor into determining the cost of running the
program. Financial metrics will be developed for analysis and comparison, such as average cost
per participant, average cost per hour. This will be useful to stakeholders/funders and for the
general restructuring of the program for cost effectiveness.
The intent of the proposed evaluation is to collect data from all primary stakeholders, past and
present participants of PASS during the evaluation period. Therefore sampling is not applicable
as the objective of this evaluation is to provide a census of direct participants of the PASS
program. It is acknowledged, however, that some service users will elect not to participate in
the evaluation, therefore the team will strive for at least a 75% participation rate. The
evaluators will utilize several methods of data collection including: interviews (in person and
telephone), questionnaires (in person and online), surveys, observation, record review, focus
groups. These data collection methods will provide much needed qualitative and quantitative
information required for an accurate evaluation of the program. Considering that some of the
15

past participants may not be able or willing to personally take interviews and complete
questionnaires, this information would be collected through telephone interviews and from
online sources. This would increase the number of people reached and provide some accuracy
in the results.
Another very crucial part of the process is determining who is suitable and should be
considered for data collection. The first group will be the parent education coordinators and
program facilitators (staff) composing of social workers and lawyers. Staff interview will be
conducted individually to assess knowledge and behavior. The facilitators will equally be
observed during the seminar to assess staff behaviors and language used and mastery of the
material thought. A review of records, charts and training materials will be conducted. Finally,
the facilitators will be brought together in a focus group for a broader conversation. These
facilitators are the face of the program and they are the once who are charged with impacting
the knowledge we think that these parents need to be able to parent their children after
separation or divorce. These are the people who have direct contact with the population in
question. If they are incompetent due to lack of appropriate training or poor program content
then that has a toll on the clients, as such hampering the very reason why the program was
developed.
Secondly, data will be collected from family law judges from the provincial and court of Queens
Bench. These judges deal with the service users after the completion of the parent education
program and would be able to judge from the behavior, attitudes, dispute managements skills,
ability to make compromises, make judgment, and reach an agreement whether or not the
16

program was delivered properly, if program content is or was sufficient/appropriate, if
facilitators have a mastery of the course content and delivering the information effectively and
if the content is easy to understand etc. They will be able to decipher the degree of changes
that have happened during these years and whether changes are called for from the stand
point of program delivery. This information will be collected using interviews, questionnaires
and a focus group for all the judges of the family law courts.
Again, data will be collected from past and present participants of PASS. As mentioned earlier
data from these participants will be collected through interviews both in person and via
telephone for people who are unable to attend an interview. Information will also be collected
through questionnaires with open ended questions for qualitative data and closed questions for
quantitative data. Interviews and questionnaires would be the two major means of data
collection from service users. Focus groups or meeting will not be utilized because of time
constrains, limited resources, lack of logistics like venues, facilitators to facilitate these groups.
These participants will be interviewed on the following aspects of the program.
i. The program content (ability to understand, replication and applicability).
ii. Program format.
iii. Facilitators (experiences, mastery of course information, ability to disseminate
information, teaching style, language).
iv. General program delivery (lectures, discussion, participation, role play, handouts,
audio visual tools).
v. Language of communication.
17

vi. Location of seminar venues (accessible public transport, parking issues, child care
availability, duty security, alternative sites).
vii. Time and duration of the program.
viii. Choice of participation (mandatory and voluntary).
One of the teams goals is to achieve at least a 75% participation rate from service users and to
achieve this I will propose that any cost obtained from participation will be reimbursed by the
project. This would mean that the fair for transit tickets (to and fro) for those who used public
transit would be reimbursed and for those who drove and had to pay for parking, they will have
their parking ticket paid for as well as millage (standard pay) for their cars. With this the
participants will be encouraged to participate as it will be at no cost to them. The funds for
reimbursing participants cost will have to be factored in the grand budget set aside for the
evaluation. It should be noted that data collection marks the most tedious arm of a program
evaluation and once data collection is completed then the analysis is prepared.
Data analysis is a process of inspecting, cleaning, transforming, and modeling data with
the goal of discovering useful information, suggesting conclusions and supporting decision
making. Data analysis has multiple facets and approaches, encompassing diverse techniques.
Considering that our evaluation was exploratory and descriptive in nature, with a desire for
quantitative and qualitative data, our data analysis will involve descriptive statistics and
exploratory data analysis. In the main analysis phase an exploratory approach is being
proposed. Exploratory analysis because no clear hypothesis is stated before analyzing the data
and the data is searched for models that describe the data well.
18

With the completion of data analysis a final report will be drafted to include a written report
that provides a narrative summary of the evaluation process, analysis and significance of data
collected, and articulates the considerations and forecasted consequences. This report will also
provide information about how information from the evaluation plan, process and results could
be used. The findings of this evaluation will be disseminated to all the primary stakeholders.
Therefore reports will be provided to the Department of Justice, the Department of Family and
social Services, the court of Queens Bench and to the government of Alberta. As mentioned
earlier the PASS program was created by the combined efforts of these departments. This
program has been and continues to be funded by these departments. It is very evident that
these departments have a very high stake in the management/operations and direction of the
PASS program. This report will influence future funding plans and consequently the growth and
expansion of this program. Copies of the evaluation findings will be given to each of these
departments for future references and a meeting of all heads of the departments will be
arranged where the evaluation findings will be presented with the intent of starting a
discussion on the way forward for PASS.
The second set of stakeholders to whom the findings would be submitted to are the Continuing
Education Division of Mount Royal College which has a contract with Family Justice Services to
manage the program (registration, hiring and evaluating facilitators and counselors and
collecting evaluation forms administered at the end of the six hours program). The report will
also be provided to the Family Justice Services (Manager and staff) and the Calgary Advisory
Committee. Family Justice Services because it is the Calgary office that directly manages the
program and to whom the Continuing Education Department of Mount Royal is answerable to.
19

The Calgary Advisory Committee which is a steering committee that manages the overall
program delivery in Calgary will equally be provided with copies of the evaluation findings. A
presentation will be made to the directors and managers of these bodies, their staff, mediators
and program facilitators in a meeting organized by the program evaluators.
Finally, the evaluators will organize a town hall meeting where the entire above mentioned
stakeholders and the general public would be invited to attend. This will give the public some of
whom may have attended, are currently attending or will attend the PASS program in future,
the opportunity to follow the findings of the evaluation personally. Having all these
stakeholders in a room at the same time will hopefully provide a forum and facilitate dialogue
between parties.
In addition to the above the evaluation findings can be published in the different community
newspapers. The use of mass media like radio and television stations would be equally essential
in the dissemination of information. An article could also be added to the newsletter the justice
department periodically compiles. Lastly, we would propose that social media (Facebook,
twitter) be used for dissemination as this medium of communication has proven to be very
effective when targeting the general public.
When conducting research in an academic or professional setting like this, one needs to be
aware of the ethics behind the research activity. The ethical considerations I have taken in to
consideration in the course of this evaluation are related to participation, confidentiality and
compensation. Firstly, we started by seeking the permission of the people who would be
involved in the evaluation process. It was made very clear from the onset that participation will
20

be voluntary. This clarification was very important especially for most of the participants of the
program who were mandated to attend the seminars and who felt that not having a choice was
of serious implications. Voluntary participation made participants feel empowered as they had
to decide whether or not they would be interested in the evaluation thus served as motivation
to participants. It is common knowledge that many types of research, such as surveys or
observations, are conducted under the assumption that findings will be anonymous. Since this
evaluation was intended to be disseminated to the public, it was explained to all participants
that the results of this evaluation will be made public, however their personal information and
contributions will not be made public unless with their authorization. As such privacy and
confidentially was guaranteed.
Furthermore, the evaluation process was set up to avoid anything that would cause physical or
emotional harm to the participants. This could be something as simple as being careful how we
worded sensitive or difficult questions during the interviews. This was very important because
most of the participants were divorced or separated from relationships and some of them
remained bitter. It was equally important to make this guarantee because a majority of these
participants are victims of domestic violence which may have caused the separation. Being
aware of all these experiences was crucial in setting modalities around the participants physical
and emotional wellbeing during evaluation.
Again, ethical considerations relating to analysis of data and general evaluation of findings was
of importance to the team. Objectivity as oppose to subjectivity in research is another
important consideration. We were sure that our own personal biases and opinions did not get
21

in the way of the evaluation. This was further ensured by an accurate representation of what
was observed. Interview responses were not taken out of context and small parts of
observations were not discussed without putting them into the appropriate context.
Finally, despite the controversy with respect to compensation we decided to reimburse our
participants for the cost of their participation for example public transit tickets, parking, fuel
and millage. We thought it was fair to reimburse their cost and did not consider this
compensation per say and thus believing that the information provided could not be influence
either way as we were not paying any participants.
In conclusion I will like to note that evaluations, be it formative, process or summative
are very important for any program irrespective of the stage at which the program is. The
importance of this process cannot be over emphasized. I am of the opinion that agencies
should allocate or factor the cost of program evaluations in their budgets and persuade or
convince funders of the importance of evaluation. The advantages to be derived from
evaluation for the agency, the funders and most importantly for the clients they serve are
worth more than can be measure in monetary terms. I will definitely advocate for program
evaluations in any agency I work for.




22

References
Amato, P. & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 26-46.
Ambert, A.M. (1998). Divorce: Facts, figures and consequences. The Vanier Institute
of the Family; http//www.vifamily.ca/cft/divorce/divorce.htm.
Aro, H. & Palossari, U. (1992). Parental divorce, adolescence and transition to young
adulthood; A follow up study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 62(3), 421-429.
Blaisure, K. & Geasler, M. (1996). Results of a survey of court-connected parent
education programs in U.S. counties. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 34(1), 41-59.
Brenda, B. & Brad, M. (2001). Best practices in parent information and education
programs after separation and divorce.
Call, G., Beer, J. & Beer J. (1994). General and test anxiety, shyness and grade point
average of elementary school children of divorced and non-divorced parents. Psychological
Reports, 74(2).
Cherlin, A., Chase-Lansdale, P. & McRae, C. (1998). Effects of parental divorce on
mental health. American Sociological Review, 63, 239-249.
Emery, R. (1999). Marriage, divorce and childrens adjustment (2nd ed.). thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Emery, R. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships. New York: Guilford.
Fischer, R. (1997). The impact of an education seminar for divorcing parents: Results
from a national survey of family court judges. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 15(3).
Gray, C., Verdieck, M., Smith, E., & Freed, K. (1997). Making it work: An evaluation of
court-mandated parenting workshops for divorcing families. Family and Conciliation Courts
Reviews.
23

Hoffman, J. (1994). Investigating the age effect of family structure on adolescent
marijuana use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23(2), 215-235.
Lamb, M. & Sternberg, K. (1997). The effects of divorce and custody arrangements
on childrens behavior, development, and adjustment. Family and Conciliation Courts Reviews.
Lye, D. (1998). Scholarly research on post-divorce parenting and child well-being.
Seattle, WA: Report to the Washington State Gender and Justice Commission.
Palosaari, U. & Aro, H. (1994). Effect of timing of parental divorce on the vulnerability
of children to depression in young adulthood. Journal of Affective Disorders.
Palosaari, U. & Aro, H. (1994). Parental divorce, self-esteem and depression: An
intimate relationship as a protective factor in young adulthood. Journal of Affective Disorders.
Petersen, V. & Steinan, S. (1994). Helping children succeed after divorce: A court-
mandated educational program for divorcing parents. Family and Conciliation Court Review.
Spigelman, A., & Spigelman G. (1991). Indications of depression and distress in divorce
and non-divorce children reflected by the Rorschack test. Journal of Personality Assessment.
Statistics Canada, (2000). Divorce 1998. www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/000928.
Statistics Canada, (1996). Life events: How families change. Ottawa: Ministry of
Industry.
The National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth, (2003).