INSTRUCTIONS

The program Evaluation Assignments will focus on ethical and/or practical concerns as well as provide examples of program evaluation research.

Address the following (PART 1): What is the NEP/SEP research (Valente, 2001; Kerr et al., 2010) examining specifically-include mention of any key concepts and the key variables (independent and dependent).

What data was used, how were the participants chosen, key findings and recommendations?

Note that syringe sharing is the common topic here. By the Program Evaluation Assignment 3 due date, submit a one-page document (single-spaced, 1” margins) that first clearly and concisely summarizes the above information along with the key findings of the study, and then (PART 2) include a discussion regarding how the behavior of the target population (as well as how target populations are defined program/politically) can impact program evaluation in general and for these particular studies; and how it can impact 1) perceptions of the NEP/SEP and 2)

how the success of such programs are assessed (think bias). Be specific. You should also include (in general) how perceptions of the target population (did you define what is meant by this term), and how it can bias program evaluations (how they are designed and conducted, particularly of programs that serve target populations that have been negatively portrayed by politicians (and their surrogates). Schneider and Ingram and the other supplemental readings should be integrated into this part but not just summaries–integrate the ideas or use for examples. This latter part should be 40-50% of the paper. So, the two parts should be about an equal length. Be sure to follow APA and writing academic paper guidelines. IMPORTANT: These are not original research papers so DO NOT follow that format–you are learning to do a clear and concise summary of the research including the important points of that research.

Draw on the provided articles but feel free to draw on another academic research as well.

Valente, T. W. (2001). Needle-exchange participation, effectiveness, and policy: syringe relay, gender, and the paradox of public health. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 78(2), 340–349.

Kerr, T., Small, W., Buchner, C., Zhang, R., Li, K., Montaner, J., & Wood, E. (2010). Syringe Sharing and HIV Incidence Among Injection Drug Users and Increased Access to Sterile Syringes. American Journal of Public Health, 100(8), 1449–1453.

Required Supplemental Readings

Lewis, D. C., Flores, A. R., Haider-Markel, D. P., Miller, P. R., Tadlock, B. L., & Taylor, J. K. (2017). Degrees of Acceptance: Variation in Public Attitudes toward Segments of the LGBT Community. Political Research Quarterly, 70(4), 861–875.

Miller, L. R., & Grollman, E. A. (2015). The Social Costs of Gender Nonconformity for Transgender Adults: Implications for Discrimination and Health. Sociological Forum, 30(3), 809–831.

Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy. American Political Science Review, 87(2), 334–347.

IMPORTANT: Do not provide any commentary about the program, personal background information, etc. Just address what is asked for.