|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|319417||539420||2014||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
این مقاله ISI می تواند منبع ارزشمندی برای تولید محتوا باشد.
- تولید محتوا برای سایت و وبلاگ
- تولید محتوا برای کتاب
- تولید محتوا برای نشریات و روزنامه ها
پایگاه «دانشیاری» آمادگی دارد با همکاری مجموعه «شهر محتوا» با استفاده از این مقاله علمی، برای شما به زبان فارسی، تولید محتوا نماید.
• It is important to evaluate the implementation processes of corporate community initiatives delivered through cross-sectorial partnerships.
• Chen's (2005) program theory is a helpful framework to evaluate the implementation processes of corporate community initiatives delivered by a non-profit partner.
• Discrepancies can exist between the associate organization and the implementers regarding understanding and fulfilling responsibilities.
• Ongoing evaluations are necessary to pinpoint the catalyst of the discrepancies.
Corporate community initiatives (CCI) are often established via cross-sector partnerships with nonprofit agencies to address critical social problems. While there is a growing body of literature exploring the effectiveness and social impact of these partnerships, there is a limited evaluative research on the implementation and execution processes of CCIs. In this paper, we examined the implementation and operational processes in the delivery of a professional sport organization's CCI initiative using program theory evaluation. The findings showed discrepancies between the associate organization and the implementers regarding understanding and fulfilling responsibilities with performing certain aspects (maintaining accurate records and program marketing) of the service delivery protocol. Despite program stakeholders being satisfied overall with the program delivery, contradictions between program stakeholders’ satisfaction in the quality of program delivery was found in critical components (marketing and communications) of the service delivery. We conclude that ongoing evaluations are necessary to pinpoint the catalyst of the discrepancies along with all partners valuing process evaluation in addition to outcome evaluation.
Journal: Evaluation and Program Planning - Volume 44, June 2014, Pages 36–47