Counseling Services Program--#1
Assessment, Evaluation and Analysis
- Gadsden -

Evaluation Topics
On This Page

Reasons Youth Missed


Sessions by Type

Service Breakdown

Grade Differential

Part II: Personnel Evaluations

Assessment Distribution

Assessment Composition

Additional Eval Topics

For more information
related to the counseling services program, or to find out if counseling services can begin in your school or school district contact us.

     The Reasons Youth Missed Sessions graph looks at the total number of times youth missed weekly counseling sessions, and for what reason the youth missed.  No shows does include days when the counselor was absent, as these days automatically serve to excuse youth from missing sessions.  The reasons youth missed sessions is helpful in determining if the counseling program is something the child is avoiding for reasons related to the sessions, and not some external influence.  Likewise, the source for missing sessions is tracked in order to monitor the whereabouts of youth at all times.  Regardless, if a youth misses a session too often the type of counseling session they have been placed in may need to be considered.  Session types, for example individual sessions, group sessions or family sessions, are used in different ways for different youth, in order to facilitate social, emotional, behavioral, and academic success.

Assessment, Evaluation and Analysis for
Counseling Services
Program #2
(Same Data)

Top of page

          The Sessions Provided by Type chart includes the tally of various types of sessions that youth attended - individual sessions (blue), group sessions (maroon) and/or family sessions (yellow).  Numbers in the chart above reflect youth who attended the same type of session, multiple times, over the course of the contract year.  For example, a child might attend a group session 30 times per year (one group each week).  If six children did the same thing, the total group type number for the year would be tallied by taking 6 (children) x 30 (weeks) for a total of 180 group sessions.  Similarly, if a child attended one individual session per week for 30 weeks, and four other children did the same thing, the total group type number for the year would be tallied by taking 5 (children) x 30 (weeks) for a total of 150 individual session types.    Family sessions are minimal in that such sessions were necessary according to the specific familial needs of some youth, thus this number for the entire year is very small.  The number of times a youth attends certain group types, in addition to other support services that are given to the school, the teachers, to parents, and others, indicates what additional interventions were needed to assist youth with various services on a day-to-day basis.

Top of page

     The Daily Service Breakdown chart reflects the average number of youth served per day (over the course of the contract year) with a break down of the session type that the youth attended each day (group, individual or family).  The three session types and the number of youth served per day are related to one another, but they will not be equal to each other.  Because children were seen individually or in groups, and because family sessions occurred after school involving the same children who were also seen earlier in the same day, the average combined numbers of "individual sessions," "group sessions," and "family sessions" exceed the average number of "youth served per day."  The fourth column, "average support services per day," is a daily average of a different service provision typology; this number is an average that includes meetings with principals, teachers, parents, school resource officers, guidance counselors, case managers, and it includes counselor attendance at IEP and study team meetings - based upon 15 minute time segments.  A common question in school counseling programs is whether or not youth measurably improve over the course of counseling services.  Measuring success in the school setting often, and logically, leads evaluators to obtain grade differentials.

Top of page

     The Grade Differential was established by obtaining grades from the school by accessing their computer database of recorded quarterly grades.  Grades were obtained at the first nine weeks (9-1) of the school year, and then contrasted to the grades at the third nine weeks (9-3).  Calculating the overall difference between time 1 and time 2 is the method by which all scores in all classes were compared.  The grade differential is an averaged overall score, and it does not reflect a course-by-course improvement or decline; the grade differential does not weight core classes differently than elective classes.  The selections of time 1 and time 2 is based upon three considerations: 1) 9-1 is a logical beginning assessment period, as the first nine weeks is the initial point when grades are available, 2) 9-3 is the next logical assessment period since final 9-4 grades are not entirely posted at the end of the counseling services program, and 3) 9-3 might better reflect an internal locus of control measure for youth who either improved or declined, as the students are less likely to be motivated by a semester pass/fail scenario, which would be the case if improvements/declines were assessed at the last nine weeks of the school year.  Grades only serve as one variable to consider in looking at program success.  Other considerations related to program efficacy include youth exit interviews, school personnel evaluations, and counselor assessments.


Top of page

DISTRIBUTION: Personnel evaluations were distributed to the school principal who organized the logistics of surveys distributed and collected.  The school was able to copy as many evaluations as needed, and evaluation forms were sent electronically via email to the principal.  Evaluation distribution/collection was encouraged to involve as many participants as possible, particularly those personnel who were directly involved with the youth attending weekly counseling services.  The evaluations were distributed to the school principal one week prior to the ending day of the program.
COMPOSITION:  The assessments consisted of seventeen quantitatively and qualitatively designed responses.  Respondents answered fourteen 6-point Likert type questions ("strongly agree," "agree," "somewhat," "disagree," "strongly disagree," and "unable to answer"), two open-ended questions, with a final question that simply stated "Other Comments."
     Response sets in the charts and graphs that follow are labeled differently than they appear on the questionnaire. "Strongly agree" and "agree" responses from the evaluation were lumped into one response set for the charts and graphs that follow, just as "strongly disagree" and "disagree" were lumped into a different response set.  The "somewhat" response and the "unable to answer" response remained isolated response sets respectively because agreeability and disagreeability were not attainable in these two responses.  One other response category in the charts and graphs, labeled as "declined to answer," was not an option on the 6-point Likert type questionnaire - but it is included in the graphic analysis to indicate that a respondent chose not to (intentionally or inadvertently) answer a survey item.  The survey distribution indicates the sample size to which the principal sought feedback on behalf of the counseling services program, however the survey return rate is indicative of respondents' intention to provide feedback, and possibly can serve as a measure of program interest.

Top of page

Additional Evaluation Topics
| Staff:  Survey Return Rate |
| Staff: Youth Improvement & Youth Regression |
| Staff:  Youth Whereabouts & Program Needed |

Top of page