discussion need back in 1 hour

peer 1 

Personal or oral presentations are an ideal way for evaluators to discuss their findings for a program.  One advantage to this type of presentation is that “people still respond more favorably to person-to-person contact than to other forms of communication” (Posavac, p.245).  Also, personal presentations are not only valuable for the audience, but also for the evaluator themselves.  Personal presentations can provide the evaluator with improvements to the presentation from the audience’s questions and facial expressions.  One disadvantage to the personal or oral presentation are the stakeholder’s knowledge and/or claims that nothing new was found from the evaluation.  Once a stakeholder mentions they already know the information and there’s nothing new found, an evaluator could be thrown off and possibly ruin the rest of the presentation.

Written presentations, although, not seemingly as important as the oral presentation, are usually expected to be submitted for an evaluation.  The main reason a written report is vital is because “those who arranged to fund the evaluation may need a tangible report for budget accountability” (Posavac, p.248).  Also, a written report could present answers to questions that may have gone unnoticed in the oral presentation.  Finally, a written report could prevent another evaluation of the program in the future which could help with budgets, time, and resources.

As far as my program evaluation is concerned, I would use a combination of the two.  The main presentation would be oral with a written report given to all attendees.  The audience of my presentation would be the Executive Committee and Organizing Committee of the Prize program.  These two committees are vital for not only the program, but also for community involvement, media, and other factors.  A PowerPoint presentation will be the oral presentation method.  This will allow me to not only address key findings and suggestions, but also graphs and charts can easily be incorporated within PowerPoint.  A written presentation will be given to all attendees.  In addition to this written presentation, a print out of the PowerPoint will be given for the attendees to take notes or write down any thoughts while the oral presentation is being given.  

Posavac, E.J. (2011). Program Evaluation: Methods & Case Studies. 8th Edition. New Jersey: Pearson Education.  

peer2

The Charleston Young Professionals (CYP) mentoring program must communicate its results to its stakeholders.  The primary stakeholders of the program are the mentors, mentees and mentee employers.    A public presentation of the results will be the most effective approach to communicating the results.  However, this will be backed up with a written report that will be provided to all stakeholders. 

A public presentation is the most efficient way to communicate results to the stakeholders.  Getting everyone to the same place allows CYP to communicate these results one time.  I would recommend that the presentation be videotaped and uploaded to their web site as well as any supporting documents provided to the stakeholders.    This allows those that can’t attend to reference the materials.  It also allows that did attend, the ability to reference the information after the fact. 

In spite of our high-tech communication systems, people still respond more favorably to person-to-person contact than to other forms of communication (Posavac, 2010).  The stakeholders of the mentoring program have the tendency to pay better attention when results are presented to them as opposed to only reading a report.  It is easier to digest and understand the evaluation results with a verbal and visual presentation.   The presentation will include a power point presentation explaining the purpose of the evaluation and a visual representation of the results in charts and graphs.

If these results are not explained in a clear and concise manner, there is the danger that the results could be interpreted incorrectly leaving stakeholders misunderstanding the evaluation.  For example, if the presentation doesn’t adequately the results, the mentee employers may not comprehend how their employees benefit from the mentoring program.  This could lead to them pulling their support of the program and not allowing their employees to participate in the future. 

A written report is equally important to communicating the evaluation results.  It documents the details of the evaluation, serves as the official record that the evaluation did take place, and includes details about the procedure, findings, and statistical analyses (Posavec, 2010).  This gives the stakeholders something to take away from the presentation and reference after the fact.   I would recommend to CYP to hire a reputable graphic designer to create a report that is visually appealing and presents the reports in way that is easy to understand.  The written report, as a stand-alone, runs the risk of only being partially read, if at all, by the stakeholders. 

In my opinion, the verbal communication method is the best way to deliver the results.   CYP has the opportunity to create excitement around a public presentation.  It also allows them to tailor the message to their audience, explain the evaluation results, talk about the recommendations and how they plan to move forward, and answer any questions from the stakeholders.  The presentation is complimented by the written report.  As I mentioned before, I would upload this report, along with the video of the presentation, to the CYP website.  This gives the stakeholders the ability to reference the results at any point following the initial presentation.  This multi-faceted approach of verbal, written, and visual communications shows that CYP is transparent, understand their strengths, and is open to opportunities for improvement.  This instills trust and loyalty from the stakeholders and helps ensure future participation. 

References:

Posavac, E.J. (07/2010).  Program Evaluation Methods and Case Studies, 8th Edition.  (South University).  Retrieved from https://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/#/books/9781256507673/