Click to enlarge
Recently, I attended a focus group training facilitated by Dr. Richard Krueger and Dr. Mary Anne Casey of the U of MN School of Public Health.
The Improve Group recently researched and analyzed the supplemental services of Minnesota Department of Human Services’ Group Residential Housing (GRH) Program. Through this program, housing is available to people with a wide spectrum of needs to prevent institutional residence or homelessness.
At the annual American Evaluation Association conference last year, I went to a compelling panel session that focused on how using both quantitative and qualitative data together is a powerful combination that helps evaluators capture both intended and unintended consequences of a program or project.
Several recent articles, listserv discussions, and American Evaluation Association conference sessions have explored where evaluation fits in complex systems.
Prior to joining the Improve Group as a Research Assistant in January 2013, I had a rather interesting employment history that provided me with a diverse set of experiences. Without a doubt, the most remarkable position I held was as a Process Service Coordinator at a private detective agency.
In 2013, the Improve Group conducted focus groups as part of many projects. Two of these projects include: the Minnesota DHS Community Services Input project and the Region 4 Mental Health Services Needs Assessment.
You can draw stronger conclusions from your survey data when you have a high response rate. Incentives can increase the likelihood that people participate, and acknowledges that their time is valuable to the research. Traditionally, these incentives come in the form of gift cards, food, money, etc. A newer trend in incentives is to “pay it forward” through a gift in kind.