MGT 3302 Case study Last updated July 26, 2019 Page 1

MGT 3302 Case study
Last updated: July 26, 2019 Page 1 of 2
CASE STUDY
Instructions: This assignment requires that you demonstrate a
sound understanding of the
concepts and principles included in this class. Read the case
presented below and complete the
assignment presented at the end. Proofread your work before
submitting. You can submit
multiple times. I will grade your last submission considering the
quality and sufficiency of
answers given, your demonstration of understanding of the
concepts included, and the extent to
which you satisfy the questions asked. In addition to the written
report, you will need to submit a
video explaining your solution. This video must be less than 4
minutes long. The written report is
worth 50 points. The video is worth 50 points. Total value: 100
points.

MOTORS AND MORE INC.
You are hired as the HR director for the fictitious Motors and
More, Inc. This business-to-
business sales company manufactures small motors and
accessories for industrial and home
products. The industry is highly competitive and the company
follows a prospector strategy.
A prospector strategy takes advantage of new markets and
products. Organizational emphasis is
on growth, innovation, and new product development. A
prospector wants to be first to the
market. To respond to competitive and rapidly changing
markets, prospectors have flexible, flat,
and decentralized organizational structures.
Motors and More is headquartered in a small southern town of
28,000 people, with a low
unemployment rate of 3.1%. This means that demand for
workers exceeds labor supply. There is
a technical school and a community college within 50 miles of
Motors and More. Motors and
More’s president is a former military and is highly patriotic. He

is committed to staying in the
community. Recently, other local companies have experienced
labor organizing activities.
Motors and More employs 116 people. Until you were hired,
there was no HR department.
Recently, the organization’s employee turnover rate has been
higher than normal. The marketing
and sales department continues to sell products to an expanding
market. Because of this
increased product demand, output must be increased by 96
percent.
In Motors and More, 88% of the employees are Caucasian.
Except for one female supervisor in
the customer service department, the president and all other
managers are Caucasian men.
Promotions have been based on seniority. Local labor market is
approximately 48% minority,
with a growing Hispanic and Kurdish population not fully
accepted into the community.
All the employees in manufacturing (including quality control),
customer service and operations
(responsible for shipping and receiving; distribution of raw

materials, components parts and
finished goods inventory; and maintenance and cleaning) have
at least a high school degree or
GED. The organization provides some skills training courses.
Please refer to the organizational
chart in Figure 1 for more details.
MGT 3302 Case study
Last updated: July 26, 2019 Page 2 of 2
Figure 1. Motors and more organization chart.
ASSIGNMENT
1. Describe a typical HR department, not one for Motors and
More. Include:
a. A chart for the HR department, with each position properly
labeled (job title).
b. For each position, show:
i. Objective.
ii. Expected outcomes.
iii. Activities to perform to produce the expected outcomes.
iv. Competencies necessary to perform the activities.

2. Given the size of Motors and More, indicate:
a. Which positions identified in your typical HR department (#1
above) should be
combined or eliminated to reduce the number of HR employees.
b. Create a new chart, specific for the HR department of Motors
and More.
c. Identify and label each position in Motors and More’s HR
Department chart.
d. For each position, show:
i. Objective.
ii. Expected outcomes.
iii. Activities to perform to produce the expected outcomes.
iv. Competencies necessary to perform the activities.
3. Discuss the differences in the organizational charts you
showed in numbers 1 and 2 above.
This case was adapted from McCain, D. (2007). Society for
Human Resource Management.

Figure 31.1
Logic Model
Logic Models
Karen A. Randolph
A
logic model is a diagram of the relationship between a need that
a
p rogram is designed to addret>s and the actions to be taken to
address the
need and achieve program outcomes. It provides a concise, one-
page pic-
ture of p rogram operations from beginning to end. The diagram
is made
up of a series of boxes that represent each of the program's com
ponents,
inpu ts or resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes. The
diagram shows how these
components are connected or linked to one another for the
purpose of achieving
program goals. Figure 31.1 provides an example of the frame
work for a basic logic model.
Th e program connections illustrate the logic of how program
operations will result in
client change (McLaughlin & Jordan, 1999). The connections
show the "causal" relati on-
ships between each of the program components and thus are
referred to as a series of"if-
then" sequence of changes leading to th e intended outco mes
for the target client group

(Chinman, hum, & Wandersman, 2004). The if-then statements
represent a program's
theory of change underlying an intervention. As such, logic
models provide a framework
that g uides the evaluation process by laying out important
relationships that need to b e
tested to demonstrate program results (Watso n, 2000).
Logic models come from the field of program evaluation. The
idea emerged in
response to the recognition among program evaluators regardin
g the need to systema tize
the p r ogram evaluation process (McLaughlin & Jordan, 20 04).
Since then , logic models
have become increasingly popular among program managers for
program planning and
to monitor program performance. With a growing emphasis on
accountability and out-
come measurement, logic models make explicit the entire
change process, Lhe assu mp-
tions t hat underlie this process, and the pathways to reach ing
outcomes. Researchers have
begun to use logic models for intervention research planning
(e.g., Brown, Hawkins,
Arthur, Brin ey, & Abbott, 2007).
The followin g sections provide a description of the components
of a basic logic model
and how these compon ents are linked together, its relationship
to a p rogram's theory of
[ : Inputs 1--_.,•1 Ac~vities ,II----.~•{ .Outputs ·11---~·1
Outcomes I
AUTHOR'S NOTE: The author wishes to acknowledge Dr. Tony
Tripodi for his though lful comments
on a drafl of this chapter.

547
548 PART V • CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH
change, and its uses and benefits. The steps for creating a logic
model as well as the chal-
lenges of the logic modeling process will be presented. The
chapter concludes with an
example of how a logic model was u~cd to enhance program
outcomes for a family liter-
acy program.
Components of a Logic Model
Typically, a logic model has four components: inputs or
resources, activities, outputs, and
outcomes. Outcomes can be further classified into short-term
outcomes, intermediate
outcomes, and long-term outcomes based on the length of time
it takes to reach these
outcomes (McLa ughlin & Jordan , 2004) . The components
make up the connection
between the planned work and the intended results (W. K.
Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
The planned work includes the resources (the inp uts) needed to
im plement the program
as well as how the resources will be used (the activities) . The
intended results include the
outputs and outcomes that occur as a consequence of the
planned work. Figure 31.2
expands on the model illuslrated in Figure 3 1.1 by adding
examples of each component.
This particular logic model, adopted from frec htling (2007),

provides an illustration of
the components of an intervention designed to prevent substance
abuse and other prob-
lem behaviors among a population of youth. The intervention is
targeted toward improv-
ing parenting skills, based on the assumption that positive
parenting leads to prosocial
behaviors among yo uth {Bahr, Hoffman, & Yang, 2005). The
following section provides
definitions and examples of each logic model component, using
this illustration.
Resources
Resources, sometimes referred to as inputs, in clude the human,
fin ancial, organizational,
and community asse ts that are available to a program to
achieve its objectives (W. K.
Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Resources are used to support and
facilitate the program
activities. They are usually categorized in terms of funding
resou rces or in -kind contribu-
tion s (Frechtling, 2007) .
Some resources, such as laws, regulations, and funding
requirements, are external to
the agency (United Way of America, 1996). Other resources,
such as staff and money, are
easier lo quantify than others (e.g., community awareness of the
program; Mertinko,
Novotney, Baker, & Lange, 2000). As Fn.:c:htli ng (2007)
notes, it is important to clearly and
tho roughly id ent ify the available resources during the logic
modeling process because this
information defines the scope and parameters of the program.
Also, this inCormation is
critical for others who may be interes ted in replicating the

program. The logic model in
Figure 31.2 includes fu nding as one of its resources.
Activities
Activities represent a program's service methodology, showing
how a program intends on
using the resources described previously to carry out its work.
Activities are also referred
to as ac tion step!; (McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004). They are the
highly specifi c tasks that
p rogram staffs engage in on a daily basis to provide services to
clients (Mertinko
et al., 2000) . They include all aspects of pro gram
implementation, the processes, tools,
events, technology, and program actions. The ac tivities form
the foundation toward facil-
itating intended client changes or reaching oulcornes (W. K.
Kellogg Fo undation, 2004).
Some examples are establishing community councils, providing
professional develop -
ment training, or initiating a media campaign (Frechtling,
2007). Other examples are
CHAPTER 31 • l OCIC MO DELS 549
Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes
Short Term Intermediate Long Term
Feedback Loop j
_J
I
Decreased

K~
Increased
I
Develop and Numbe r of Increased
youth Funds .~ initiate ~edi a st~tions a~opti ng r-- awareness
f- positive 1-----+ of positive substance
-~m~tg~-- -.:::c -campatgn J pa renting parenti ng - abv?~d'
~-'.:-
/
I
Develop and Number of Increased
distribute - 1> fact sheets 1- enrollment
fact sheets distributed in parenting
programs
Fig ure 31.2 Example of l ogic Model With Com ponents, Two
Types of Connections, and a Feedbaclc loop
providing shelter for homeless families, educating the public
about signs of child abuse,
or providing adult mentors for youlh {United Way of Ame rica,
1996) . Two activities,
" Deve lop and initiate media campaign" and "Develop and
distribute fact sheets;' are
included in the logic model in Figure 31.2. Activities lead to or
produce the program o ut-
puts, described in the following section.
Outputs

The planned works (resources and activities) bring about a
program's des ired res ul ts,
including outputs and outcom es (W. K. Kell ogg Foundatio n,
2004) . Outputs, also referred
to as units of service, are the immediate results of program
activities in the form of types,
levels, and targets of services to be delivered by the program
(McLaughl in & Jordan ,
1999). They are tangible products, events, o r serv ices. They
provide the documentation
that activities have been implemented and, as such, indicate if a
program was delivered to
the intended audience at the intended dose (W. K. Kellogg
FounJation, 2004). Outputs
arc typical ly desc ribed in terms of th e size and/or scope of the
services an d products pro-
duced by the program and thus are expressed numerically
(Frechtling, 2007). Examples of
program ou tpu ts include the number of classes ta ught,
meetings held, o r materials p ro-
duced and distributed; program par ticipation rates and
demography; or hours of each
type of serv ice provided (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004) .
Other examples are the
number of meals provided, classes taught, brochures distributed
, or participants ser ved
(Frecht1ing, 2007) . W hile outputs have little inherent value in
themselves, they provide
the link between a program's activ ities and a program's
outcomes (United Way of
America, 1996). The logic model in Figure 31.2 includes Lhc
number of stations adopting
the media campaign and the number of fact sheets distributed as
two outputs for the pre-
vention program.

550 PART V • CONCEPTUAL RESEARCH
Outcomes
Outcomes arc Lhe specific changes experienced by the
program's clients or target group as
a consequence of participating in the program. Outcomes occur
as a result of the program
activities and outputs. These changes may be in behaviors,
attitudes, skill level, status, or
level of functioning (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
Examples include increased knowl-
edge of nut r itional needs, improved reading skills, more
effective responses to conflict,
and finding employment (United Way of America, 1996) .
Outcomes are indicalors of a
program's level of success.
McLa ughlin and Jordan (2004) make the point that some
programs have multiple,
sequential outcome structures in the form of short-term
outcomes, intermediate out-
comes, and long-term outcomes. In these cases, each type of
outcome is linked tempo-
rally. Short-term outcomes arc client changes or benefits th at
are mos t immediately
associated with the program's outputs. They are usually realized
by clients wi thin 1 to
3 years of program completion. Short-term outcomes are linked
to accomplishing inter-
mediate outcomes. Intermediate ou tcomes are generally attain
able in 4 to 6 years. Long-
term outcomes are also referred to as program impacts or
program goals. They occur as a
result of the intermediate outcomes, usually within 7 to 10

years. In this format, long-
term outcomes or goals are directed at macro-level change and
target organizations, co m-
munities, or systems (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004).
As an example, a sequen tial outcome structure with short-
term, intermediate, and
long-term outcomes for the prevention program is displayed in
Figure 31.2. As a result of
hearing the public service announ cemen ts about positive
parenting (th e activity), parents
enroll in parenting programs to learn new parenting skills (the
short-term outcome).
Then they apply these newly learned skills with their children
(the intermediate out-
come), which leads to a reducti on in substance abuse among
youth (the long-term impact
or goal the parenting program was designed to achieve).
Outcomes ar e often confused with outputs in logic models
because their correct clas-
sification depends on the context within which they are being
included. A good exa mple
of this potential confusion, provided in the United Way of
America manual ( 1996, p. 19),
is as follows. The number of clients served is an output when it
is meant to describe the
volume of work accomplished. In this case, it does not relate
directly to cl ient changes or
benefits. H owever, the number of clients served is considered
to be an outcome when the
program's intention is to encourage clients to seek services,
such as alcohol treatment.
What is important to remember is that outcomes describe
intended client changes or
benefits as a result of participatin g in the program whil e

outputs document products or
services produced as a result of activities.
Links or Connections Between Components
A critical part of a logic model is the connections or links
between the components. The
connections illustrate the relationships between the components
and the process by
which change is hypothesized to occur among program
participants. This is referred to as
the program theory (Frechtling, 2007). It is the con nections
illustrating the program's
theory of change that make the logic model complicated.
Specifying the connections is
one of the more difficult aspects of developing a logic model
because the process requires
predicting the process by which client change is expected to
occur as a result of program
participation (Frech tling, 2007).
CHIII'TER 31 • lOGIC M ODtLS 551
Frechtling (2007) describes nvo types of connections in a logic
model: connections
that link items within each compo nent and connections that
illustrate the program's
theory of change. The first type, items within a component, is
connected by a straight line.
This line shows that the items make up a
particularcomponent.As an example, in Figure 31.2,
nvo activities, "Develop and initiate media campaign" and "
Develop and distribute fact
sheets," are linked together with a straight line beca use they

represent the items within the
activities component. Similarly, two outputs, "Number of
stations adop ting the cam-
paign" and "Number of fact sheets distributed;' arc connected as
two items within the
outputs component.
The second type of connection sh<.>ws how the components
interact with or relate to
each other to reach expected outcomes (Frechtling, 2007) . In
essence, this is the program's
theory of change. Thus, instead of straight lines, arrows are
used to show the direction of
influence. Frechtling (2007) clarifies that "these directional
connections are not just a
kind of glue ancho ring the otherwise floating boxes. Rather
they portray the changes thaL
arc expected to occur after a previous ac Livity has taken place,
and as a result of it" (p. 33).
She points out that the primary purpose of the evaluation is to
determine the nature of
the relationships between components (i.e., whether the
predictions are correct). A logic
mod el that illustrates a fully developed theory of change
includes links between every
item in each co mponent. In other words, every item in every
component must be co n-
nected to at least one item in a subsequent component. This is
illustrated in Figure 3 1.2,
which shows that each of the two items within th e activities co
mpon en t is linked to an
item within the output co mponent.
Figure 31.2 provides an example of the predicted relationships
between the compo-
nents. This is the program theory about how the target group is

expected to change. The
input or resource, funding, is co nnected to the tv,ro activities,
"Develop and initiate media
campaign" and "Develop and distribute fac t sheets." Simply
put, this part of Figure 31 .2
shows that funding will be used to support the development and
initiati on of PSA cam-
paigns and the distribution of fact sheets.
The sequencing of the connections between components also
shows th at these steps
occur over a period of time. While this may seem obvious and
relatively inconsequential,
specifying an accurate sequence has time-based implications, pa
rticularly when short-
term, intermediate, and long-term outco mes are proposed as a
part of the theory of
change (Frechtling, 2007). Rcca11 that the short-term outcomes
lead to achieving the
intermediate outcomes, and the intermediate outcomes lead to
ach ieving long-term out-
comes. Thus, the belief or underl}ing ass umption is that short-
term outco mes mediate
(or come between) relationships benv-een activities and
intermediate o utcomes, and
intermediate outcomes mediate relations between sho rt-te rm
and long-term outcomes.
Related, sometimes logic models display feedback loops.
Feedback loops show how the
information gained from implementing one item can be used to
refine and improve other
items (Frechlling, 2007). f or instance, in Figure 31.2, the
feedback loop from the short-
term outcome, " Increased awareness of positive parenting;'
back to the activity, "Develop

and initiate media campaign;' indicates that the findings for "
Increased awareness of pos-
itive parenting" arc used to im prove the PSA campaigns in the
next program cycle.
Contextual Factors
Logic models describe programs that exist and are affected by
contextual factors in the
larger environment. Contextual factors are those important
features of the environment
552 PART V • CONCEPTUAL R ESEARCH
in which the project or inter vention takes place. They include
the social, cultural, and
political aspects of the environment (Frechtling, 2007). They
are typically not under the
program's control yet are likely to influe nce the program either
positively or negatively
(McLa ughlin & Jordan, 2004 ). T hu s, it is critical to identify
relevant contextual factors
and to consider their potential impact on the program.
McLaughlin and Jordan (1999)
point out that understanding and articulating contex tual factors
co ntr ibu tes to an under-
standing of the fo undat io n u pon whi ch performance
expectatio ns a re established.
Mo reover, this knowledge h elps to establish the parameters for
explaining program
results and developing program improvement strategies that are
li kely to be more m ean-
ingful and thus more successful because the information is more
complete. finally, con-

textual factors clarify situations under which the program
results might be expected to
generalize and the issues that might affect replication
(Frechtling, 2007) .
Harrell, Burt, Hatry, Rossm an, a nd Roth ( 1996) identify two
types of contextual fac-
tors, antecedent and media6ng, as o utside facto rs that could
influence th e program's
design, implementa tio n, and results. Anteceden t factors are
thos e that exist prior to
program implemen tatio n, such as cha racteristics of the client
target population o r com-
munity characteristics such as geographical and economic
conditions. Mediating factors
are the environmental influences that emerge as the program
unfolds, such as new laws
and policies, a change in economic con ditions, or the startup of
other new programs pro-
viding similar services (McLaughlin & jordan, 2004).
Logic Models and a Program's Theory of Change
Definition
Log ic models p rovide an illustration of the compo nents of a
program's theo t-y and how
those components are linked togeth er. Program theory is
defined as "a plausible and sen-
sible model of how a program is supposed to wo rk" (Bickman,
1987, p. 5). Program
theory in corporates "program resources, program activities, and
intended program out-
comes, and specifies a chain of causal assumptions linking
resources, activities, interme-
di ate outcomes, and ulti mate goals" (Wholey, 1987, p. 78).
Program theory e.>..-plicates the

assumptions abou t how the program components link together
from program star t to
goal attainmen t to realize the program's intended outcomes
(Frechtling, 2007). Thus, it is
often referred to as a p rogram's theory of change. Frechtling
(2007) suggests that both
previous research and knowledge gained from practice
experience arc useful in develop-
ing a theory of change.
Relationship to logic Models
A logic model provides an illustration of a program's theory of
change. It is a useful tool
for describing program theory because it shows the connections
or if-then relationships
between program components. In other words, moving from left
to right from one com-
po nent to the next, logic models provide a diagram of the
rationale or reasoning underly-
ing the theory of change. If-th en statements connect the
program's co m po nents to form
the theory of change (W. K. Kellogg Founda tion, 2004). For
example, certain resources or
inputs are needed to carr y out a program's activities. The first
if-then statement links
reso urces to acti vities and is stated, " If you have access to
these resources, then yo u can use
them to accomplish yo ur planned activities" (W. K. Kellogg Fo
undation, 2004, p. 3). Each
CHAPTER 31 • LOCIC MODELS SS3
component in a logic model is linked to the other components
using if-then statemen ts to

show a program's chain of reasoning about how client change is
predicted to occur. The
idea is that "if the right resources are transformed into the right
activities for the right
people, then these will lead to the results the program was
designed to achieve"
(McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004, p. 11). It is important to define
the components of an inter-
vention and make the connections between them explicit
(Frechtling, 2007).
Program Theory and Evaluation Planning
Chen and Rossi (1983) were among th e first to suggest a
program theory-driven
approach to evaluation. A program's theory of change has
significant utility in develop-
ing and implementing a program evaluation because the theory
provides a framework
for determining the evalu ation questions (Rossi, Lipsey, &
Freeman, 2004) . As such, a
logic model that ill ustrates a program's theory of change
provides a map to inform the
developmen t of relevant eval uation questions at each phase of
t he evaluation. Rossi
et al. (2004) explain how a program theory-based logic mode l
enha nces the devel op-
ment of evaluation questions. First, the process of articulating
the logic of the
program's change process through the development of the logic
model prompts discus-
sion of relevant and meaningful evaluation questions. Second,
these questions then lead
to articulating expect ations fo r p rogram performance and
inform the identification o f
criteria to measure that performance. Third, obtaining input
from key stakeholders

about the theory of change as it is displayed in the logic model
increases the likelihood
of a more comprehensive set of questions and that critical issues
have not been over-
looked. To clarify, most agree that this is a team effort that
should include the program
development and program evaluation staff at a minimum, as
well as other stakeholders
both internal and external to the program as they are available
(Dwyer & Makin, 1997;
Frech tling, 2007; Mclaughlin & Jordan, 2004). The diversity of
perspective and skill sets
among the team members (e.g., program developers vs. program
evaluators) enhances
the depth of understanding of how the program will work, as
diagramed by the logic
model (Frechtling, 2007). As D"vyer and Makin (1997) state,
the team approach to
develop ing a theory-based logic model promotes "greater
stakeholde r invo lvement, the
opportunity for open negotiation of program objectives, greater
commitment to the
final co nceptualization of the program, a shared vis ion, and
increased likeliho od to
accept and utilize th e evaluation results" (p. 423) .
Uses of Logic Models
Logic models have many uses. They help Lo integrate the entire
program's planning and
implementation process from beginning to end, including the
evaluation process (D wyer
& Makin, 1997). They can be used at all of a program's stages
to enhance its success
(Frechlling, 2007; W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). For
instance, at the program design

and planning stage, going through the process of developing
logic models helps to clarify
the purpose of the program, the development of program
strategies, resources that are
necessary to attaining outcomes, and th e identification of
possible barriers to
the program's success. Also, identifying program components
such as activities and
outcomes prior to program implementation provides an
opportunity to ensure that
program outcomes inform program activities, rather than the
other way aroun d (Dwyer
& Makin, 1997) .
554 PART V • CoNcEPTUAl R ESEA RC H
During the p rogmm implementation phase, a logic model p
rovides the basis fo r th e
development of a management plan to guide program
monitoring ac tiv ities and to
improve program processes as issues arise. In other words, it
helps in identifying and
highlighting the key program processes to be tracked to ensure a
program's effectiveness
(United Way of America, 1996).
Most important, a logic model facilitates evaluatio n planning
by providing the evalua-
tion framework fo r shapin g the evalua tion across all stages of
a project. Intended out-
comes and the process for measuring these outcomes are
displayed in a logic model
(Watson, 2000), as well as key points at which evaluation
activities should take place

across the life of the program (McLaughlin & Jordan) 2004).
Logic models suppo rt both
formative and summative evaluations (Frechtli ng, 2007). They
can be used in conducting
summativc evaluations to determine what has been
accomplished and, importantly, the
process by which these accomplishments have been achieved
(Frechtling, 2007) . Logic
models can also support formative evaluations by organizing
evaluatio n activities, incl ud-
ing the meas urement of key variables or performance indicators
(McLaughlin & Jordan,
2004) . From this info rmation, evaluation questions, relevant
indicators, and data collec-
tion strategies can be developed. The following section expands
on using the logic model
to develop evaluation questions.
The logic m odel provides a framework for developing eval uat
ion q uestions about
prog r am co n text, program efforts, and p rogram effec
tiveness ( Frech t ling, 2007;
Mer ti nko et al., 2000). Together, these three sets of quest ions
help to explicate the
progr am's theory of change by describing the assumptions
about the r elationship s
between a program's operations and its predicted outcomes
(Ross i et al. , 2004) .
Context questio ns explore program capacity and relationships
external to the program
and help to identify and understand the impac t of confo unding
factors or externa l
infl uences. Pr ogram effort and effectiveness quest ions
correspond to particular co m -
ponents in the logic model and thus exp lore program processes
t oward ach ieving

program outcomes. Questions a bout effor t address the planned
work of the program
and come from the input and activities sections of the eva luatio
n mo d el. They address
program implementation issues such as the services that were
provided and to who m.
These questio ns focus on what happene d and why.
Effectiveness or outco m e questions
address program results as described in the output and outcomes
section of the logic
m odel. From the questions, indicators and da ta collection
strategies can the n be d evel-
oped. Guidelines for using logic mo d els to develop evaluation
questi ons, ind icators,
and data collection strategies are provided in the Logic Model
Development Guide
( W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 200 4 ).
In addition to supporting program effo rts, a logic model is a
useful comm unication
tool (McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004 ). For instance, devel oping a
logic model provides the
opportunity fo r key stakeholders to discuss and reach a
common understanding, includ-
ing underlying assumptions, about how the program opera tes an
d the resources needed
to achieve program p rocesses and outcomes. ln fact, some
suggest t hat the logic model
development process is actually a form of strategic planning
because it requ ires partici-
pants to articulate a program's vision, the rationale for the
program, and the program
processes and procedures ('Watson, 2000) . T his also promotes
stakeholder involvem ent in
program planning and consensus building on the program's
design and operations.

Moreover, a logic model can be used to explain program
procedures and sha re a compre-
hensive yet concise picture of th e p rogram to comm unity
partners, funders, and others
outside of the agency (McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004) .
CHAPTER 3 1 • LOGIC M ODF I S 555
Steps for Creating Logic Models
McLaughlin and Jordan (2004) descri be a five-stage process for
developing logic models.
The first stage is to gather extensive baseline information from
multiple sources abo ut the
nature of the problem or need and about alternative solutions.
The W. K. Kellogg
Foundation (2004) also suggests collecting information about
community needs and
assets. This information can then be used to both define the
problem (the second stage of
developing a logic model ) and identify the program clements in
the form of logic model
componen ts (the third stage of logic model development).
Possible information sources
include existing program documentation, interviews with key
stakeholders internal and
exte rn al to the program, strategic plans, annual performance
plans, previous program
evaluations, an d relevant legislation and regulations. It is also
important to review the lit-
erature about factors related to the problem and to determ ine
the strategies others have
used in attemp ting to address it. This type of information
provides supportive evidence

that informs the approach to addressing the problem.
The information collected in the first stage is th en used to
define the problem, the
con textual factors that relate to the problem, and Lhus the need
for the program. The
program sho uld be conceptualized based on what is uncovered
abo ut the nature and
extent of the problem, as well as the factors that are correlated
with or cause the prob-
lem. It is also impor tan t at this stage to develop a clear idea of
the impact of the prob-
lem across micro, mezzo, and macro domains. The focus of the
program is then to
address the "causal" factors to solve t he problem. In addition,
McLaughlin and Jordan
(2004, p. 17) recommend identifyi n g the environmental factors
that are likely to affect
the program, as well as ho·w these conditions might affect progr
am outcomes.
Understanding the relationship between the program and relevan
t environmental fac-
tors contributes to framing its parameters.
During the third stage, the elemen ts or components of the logic
model are identified,
based on the findings that emerged in the second stage.
McLaughlin and Jorda n (2004)
recommend starting out by categorizing each piece of
information as a resource or input,
activity, o utput, short-term outcome, intermediate outcome,
long-term outcome, or con-
textual factor. While some suggest that the order in which the
components arc identified
is in consequen tial to developing an effective logic mod el,
most recommend beginning

this process by identifying long-term outcomes and working
backward (United Way of
America, 1996; W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004) .
The lo gic model is drawn in the fourth stage. Figure 31 .2
provi.des an example of a typ -
ical logic model. This diagram includes columns of boxes
representing the items for each
component (i.e., inputs, activities, outputs, and shor t-term,
intermediate, and long- ter m
outcomes). Text is provided in each box to describe the item.
The connections between
the items within a component are shown with straight lines. The
links or connections
between components are shown with one-way directional
arrows. Prog ram components
may or may not have one-on-one rela tionships with o ne
another. In fact, it is likely that
components in one group (e.g., inputs) will have multiple
connections to components in
another group (e.g., activities). For example, in Figure 31.2, we
show that the funding
resource leads to two activities, "Develop and initiate media
campaign" and "Develop and
distribute fact sheets." Finally, because activities can be
described at many levels of detail,
McLaughlin and Jordan (2004) suggest simplifying the model
by group ing activities that
lead to the same outcome. They also recommend including no
more than five to seven
activity groupings in one logic model.
556 PART V • CO NCEPTUAl RESEARCii

Stage 5 focuses on verifying the logic model by getting input
from all key stakeholders.
McLaughlin and Jordan (2004) recommend applying the if-then
statements presented by
United Way of America ( 1996) in developing hypotheses to
check the logic model in the
following manner:
given observations of key contextual factors, if resources, then
program activities; if
program activities, then out puts for targeted customer groups;
if outputs change
behavior, first short term, then intermediate outcomes occur. If
intermediate out-
comes occur, then longer-term outcomes lead to the problem
being solved. (p. 24)
They also recommend answering the following questions as a
part of the verification
process (pp. 24-25):
1. Is the level of detail sufficient to create understanding of the
elements and their
interrela ti onsh ips?
2. Is the program logic complete? That is, arc all the key
elements accounted for?
3. Is the program logic theoretically sound? Do all the elements
fit together logically?
Are there other plausible pathways to achieving the program
outcomes?
4. Have all the relevant external contextual factors been
identified and their potential
influences described?

Challenges in Developing Logic Models
Frechtling (2007 ) describes three sets of challenges in
developing and using logic models,
including (a) accurately portraying the basic features of the
logic model, (b) determining
the appropriate level of detail in the model, and (c) having
realistic expectations about
what logic models ca n and canno t contribute to program
processes. These challenges are
reviewed in more detail in the following section.
Portraying the Logic Model's Basic Features Accurately
The basic features of a logic model must be clearly understood
in order for the logic
model to be useful. In particular, logic model developers often
enco unter difficulty in four
areas: confusing terms, substituting specific measures for more
gene ral outcomes, assum-
ing unidirectionality, and failing to specify a timefrarne for
program processes (Frechtling,
2007; McLaughlin & Jordan, 2004).
One issue in developing the logic model is accurately
differentiating between an activity
or outp ut and an outcome. Frequently, activities and outputs
are confused witl1 outcomes
(Frechtling, 2007). They can be distinguished by remembering
that activities are steps or
actions taken in pursuit of producing the output and thus
achieving the outcome. Outputs
are products that come as a result of completing activities. They
are typically expressed
numerically (e.g., the number of training sessions held).
Outputs provide the documenta-

tion that activities have occurred. They also link activities to ou
tcomes. Outcomes are
statements about participant cha nge as a result of experiencing
the intervention.
Outcomes describe how participants will be different after they
finish the program.
Another issue in portraying the basic features of logic models
accurately is not confus-
ing outcomes with the instruments used to measure whether the
outcomes were achieved.
C HAP t ER 31 • l OGIC M ODHS 557
For example, the outcome may be decreased depression, as
measured by an instrument
assessing a participant's level of depression (Center for
Epidemiological Studies-
Depression Scale; Radloff, 1977). Some may confuse the
outcome (i.e., decreased depres-
sion) with the instrument (i.e., Center for Ep idem iological
Studies- Depression Scale) that
was used to determine whether the outcome was met. To
minimize the potential for this
confusion, Frechtling (2007) recommends developing the
outcome lirsl and then identify-
ing the appropriate instrument for determ ini ng that the
outcome has been reached.
A thiru issue in logic model development is avoiding the
assumption that the logic
model and, by implication, the theo ry of change that the logic
model portrays move in a
unidirectional progression from left to right {Frechtling, 2007;

McLaughlin & Jordan,
2004) . While the visual display may compel users to thi nk
about logjc mod els in this way,
logic models and the programs they represent are much more
dynamic, with feedback
loops and interactions among components. The feedback loop is
illustrated in Figure 31.2,
showing that the experi ences and information generated from
reachin g short-term out-
comes are used to refine and, it is hoped, improve the activities
in the next program cycle
that are expected to lead to these outcomes. Also, assuming
uniform directionality can
enforce the belief that the inp uts dTi ve the project, rather than
attaining the outcomes.
This underscores the importance of starting with the
development of outcomes when
putting together a logic modeL
The final issue is including a timeframe for carrying out the
processes depicted in the
logic model. The lack of a tirneframe results in an incomplete
theory of chan ge as well as
problematic expectations about when outcomes will be reached
(Frechtling, 2007).
Whether outcomes are expected too soon or not soon enough,
key stakeholders may
assume that the theory of change was not accurate. Developing
accurate predictions of
when outcomes will be reached is often d ifficu lt, especially
with n ew projects in which
very li ttle is known abou t program processes and so forth. In
this case, as more clarity
emerges abo ut the amount of time it will take to complete
activities, tirneframes should
be revisited and modified to reflect the new information.

Determining the Appropriate Level of Detail
A second set of challenges is to determine how much detail to
include in the logic model.
T he underlying dilemma is the level of complexity. Models that
are too complex, with too
much detail, are lime-consuming to develop and difficult to
interpret. Thus, they are
likely to be cumbersome to use. Models that lack enough
information may depict an
incomplete theory of change by leaving out impor tant
information. For instance, if activ-
ities are combined into par ticular groups, it is possible that
important links between spe-
cific activiti es, outp uts, and outcomes wiJJ not be represented.
This increases Lhe
possibility of making faulty assumptions about program opera
lions and how these oper-
ations lead to positive participant outcomes.
Realistic Expectations
The fmal set of challenges in using logic models is no t
expecting more from logic models
than what th ey are intended to provide. Frechtling (2007, p. 92)
notes that some may
inaccurately view the logic model as a "cure-ali" a nd that, just
by its mere existence, the
logic model wi ll ensure the success of the program and the
evaluation. Of course, the effi-
cacy of a logic model depends on the quality of its design and
components. A log ic model
cannot overcome these types of problems. Frcchtling identifies
four commo n issues
here. First, sometimes new programs are such that applying the
theory of change and a

558 P11RT V • CoN ctPI'UAl R ESEARCH
representative logic model is premature. This is the case for
programs in which a priori
expectations about relationships between activities and
outcomes do not exist.
A second risk in this area is fai ling to consider alternative
theories of change.
Alternative explanations and competing hypotheses sho ul d be
explored. Focusing on only
one theory of change may result in not recognizing and
including important factors that
fall o utside of the theorys domain. Ignoring these competing
fac to rs may result in the
fail ure of the logic model and the program.
Third and related, it is critical to acknowledge the influenc e of
contextual factors that
arc likely to affect the program. Interventions always exist and
function wiLhi n a larger
environment. Contextual factors influence the success or failure
of these interventions.
For instance, one contextual factor that might affect outcomes
of the program diagrammed
in Figure 31 .2 is the diversity of the target group. As
Frechtling (2007) observes, this d iver-
sity may include language differences among subgroups, which
need to be accounted for
in developing program m aterials.
fin ally, logic models cannot fully co mp ensate for the rigor of
expe rimental design
when testing the impact of interventions o n outco m es (Frech

tling, 2007) . T he logic
model explicates the critical components of a program and the
processes that lead to
desired outcomes (the program theory of cha nge). The
implementation of the model
provides a test of th e accuracy of the theory. However,
validatio n of the logic model is not
as rigorous a proof as what is established through study designs
employing experimental
or quasi-experimental methodologies. Causality cannot be
determined through logic
models. Alhen possible, an evaluation can be strengthened by
combining the advantages
of logic modeling with experimental design.
Logic Modeling in Practice: Building
Blocks Family Literacy Program
The following provides an example of logic modeling in
practice. The example describes the
use of a program logic model in developing, implementing, and
evaluating the Building
Blocks family literacy program and how client exit data were
then used to revise the model in
a way that more explicitly illustrated the program's path•.vays
to achieving intended outcomes
(i.e., feedback loop; Unrau, 2001, p. 355). The original program
outcomes were to increase
(a ) children's literacy skills and (b) parents' abilities to assist
their children in developing lit-
eracy skills. The sam ple included 89 families who participated
in the 4-week program du ring
its initial year of operation. The following describes the process
by which the logic model was
developed and how the client outcome data were used to fme-
tune the logic model.

The family literacy program's logic model was created at a one-
day workshop facili-
tated by the evalua tor. Twenty key stakeholders representing
various constituenc ies,
including program staff (i.e., steering committee members,
administration, and literacy
workers), representatives from other programs (i.e., public
school teachers, child welfare,
and workers and clients from other literacy programs), and oth
er interested citizens, par-
ticipated in the workshop (Unrau, 2001, p. 354). A consensus
decision- making process
was used to reach an agreement on all aspects of the process,
including the program pur-
pose, the prog ram objectives, and the pro gram activities.
During the workshop, stakeholders created five products that
defined the program
parameters and info rmed the focus of the evaluation. These
products included an organi-
zational chart, the beliefs and assumptions of stakeholders about
client service delivery,
the questions for the eval uation, the program's goals and
objectives, and the program
CHAPTER 31 • l OGIC MoDElS 559
activities. The program goals, objectives, and activities were
then used to develop the orig-
inallogic model.
One of the evaluation methods used to assess client ou tcomes
was to conduct semi-

st ructured phone interviews with the parents after families
completed the program.
Random select ion procedu res were used to identify a su bset (n
= 35 or 40o/o) from the
list of all parents to participate in the interviews. Random
selection procedures were used
to ensure that the ex-periences of the interviewees represented
those of all clients served
during the evaluation time period. Relative to the two program
outcomes, respondents
were asked to provide examples of any observed changes in
both their children's literacy
skills (Outcome 1) and their ability to assist their children in
developing literacy skills
(Outcome 2; Unrau, 2001, p. 357). The co nstant comparison
method was used to analyze
the data (Pa tton, 2002 ). In this method, meani ngful units of
texi: are assigned to similar
categories to identify common themes.
What emerged from the parent interviews was more detailed
information about how
the two inten ded outcomes were achieved. Parent experiences
in the program suggested
four additional processes that li nk to reaching the two final
outcomes. Thi s infor mation
was added to the original logic model to more fully develop the
pathways to improving
children's literacy skills through the family literacy program.
These additional outcomes
were actually steps toward meeting the two originally intended
outcomes and thus iden-
tified as intermediate outcomes and ne-cessary steps toward ach
ieving the or iginally stated
long-term outcomes. Figure 31.3 provides a diagram of the
revised logic model. The

shaded boxes represent the components of the original logic
model. The other compo-
nents were added as a result of the parent exit interview data.
Input j I Activities I Short-Term Outcomes I [ Intermediate
Outcomes J I Long-Term :Outcomes j
Improve child's
behavior
Increase parent's
own literacy skills
Figure 31.3 Example of a Revised Program Logic Model for a
Family Literacy Program
SOURCE: Unrau (200 1}. Copyright November 21 , 2007 by
Elsevier limited. Reprinted with permission.
NOTE: The shaded boxes represent the logic model's original
components. The other boxes were added as a result of feedbac k
from clients
after program compl etion.
560 PART V • CONCEPTUAL R ESEARCH
While the parent in terview data were useful in revising the
program logic about client
change, it is important to interpret this process withi n the app
ropriate context. This part
of the evaluation does not provide evidence that the program
caused client change (Rossi
et al., 2004). This can only be determined through the use of
experimental methods with

random ass ignmen t. Nonetheless, these paren t data contr ibute
to developing a mo re fully
developed model fo r unde rstanding how fam ily literacy
programs wo rk to improve out-
comes for children. Experimental methods can then be used to
test the revised model for
the purpose of es tablishing the causal pathways to the intended
outcomes.
Conclusion
The purpose of this chapter was to introduce the rea der to logic
models and to the logic
modeling process. Logic models present an illustration of th e
components of a program
(inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes) and how these
components connect with one
another to facilitate participant change (pro gram theory). They
are tools to assist key
stakeholders in program plann ing, program implementation and
monitoring, and espe-
cially program eva lu ation. They can also be used as
communication tools in expla ining
program processes to key stakeholders external to the program.
Creating a logic model is
a time-consuming process with a number of potential
challenges. Nonetheless, a well-
developed and thoughtful logic mo del is likely to ensure a
program's success in reaching
its intended outcomes.
References
Bahr, S., Hoffman, J., & Yang, X. (2005) . Parental and peer
influence on the risks of adolescent drug
use. journal ofPrirnary Prevention, 26, 529- 551.

Bickman, L. (1987) . The function of program theory. In L.
Bickman (Ed .), New directions in evalu-
ation: Vol. 33. Using program theory in evaluation (pp. 1- 16).
San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Brown, E. C., Hawkins, J. D., Arthur, M. W., Briney, J. S., &
Abbot t, R. D. (2007) . Effects of
Comm un ities that Care on prevention services systems:
Findings from the Community Youth
Devcloprnenl sLudy at 1.5 years. Prevention Science, 8, 180-
191.
Chen, H.-I., & Ross i, P. H. (1983) . Evaluating with sense: The
theory-driven approach. Evaluation
Review, 7, 283- 302.
Chinrnan, M., Imrn, P., & Wandersman, A. (2004). Geuing to
outcomes 2004. Santa Monica, CA:
RAND Corporation.
Dvvyer, J. J. M., & Makin, S. (1997) . Usi ng a program logic
model that focuses on perfo rmance mea-
surement to develop a program. Canadian journal of Public
Health, 88, 421-425.
Frechtling, J. A. (2007). Logic modeling methods in program
evaluat.ion. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harrell, A., Burt, M ., Hatry, H ., Rossman, S., & I"l.oth, J. (
1996). Evaluation strategies for human
services programs: A guide for policy make1·s and providers.
Wash ington , DC: The Urban
Institute.
McLaughlin, J. A. , & Jordan, G. B. (1999) . Logic models: A

tool fo r tell ing you r program's pe rfor-
mance stor y. Evaluation and Program Plar~ning, 22, 65- 72.
McLaughlin, J. A., & Jordan, G. B. (2004). Using logic models.
In J. S. Wholey, H. P. Hatry, & K. E.
Newcomer (Eds.), Handbook of program evaluatiOn (pp. 7- 32).
San Francisco: )ossey- Bass.
Mertinko, E., Novotney, L. C., Baker, T. K., & Lange, J.
(2000). Evalual'ing your program: A beginner's
self-evaluation workbook for mentoring programs. Potomac,
MD: Information Technology
International.
CHAPTER 3 I • l OviC Moons 561
Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report
depression scale for research in the general
popuJation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 385-401.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, I I. E. (2004) .
Evaluation: A systematic approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
United Way of America. (1996). Measuring program outcomes:
A practical approach. Retr ieved
N ovem ber I I, 2007, from ww·w.unitedway.o rg/Outcom
es/Resources/MPO/iudcx.cfm
Unrau, Y. A. (2001). Using client exit interviews to ill uminate
outcomes in program logic models: A

case example. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 353-361.
Watson, S. (2000). Using results to improve the lives of
children and families: A guide for public-private
child care partnerships. Retrieved ~ovember 11, 2007, from
www.nccic.acf.hhs.gov/ccpart:nerships/
resource.htm
Wholey,) . S. (1987) . Evalu ability assessment: Developing
program theory. In L. Bickman ( Ed.),
New directions in evaluation: Vol. 33. Using program theory in
evalua.tio11 (pp. 77 92) . Sa n
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
W. K. Kellogg Foundation . (2001) . Logic model development
guide. Retrieved November Jl , 2007,
fr om h ttp://www. wkkf.org/d efau lt.aspx?tabid= l 01 &Cm
=28l&Catl0=28 l &ltemTD- 28 13669&
N ID= 20&La nguageiD=O
http:/ /www.wkkf.org
Web site from theW. K. Kellogg Foundation conta ining useful
templates and exercises in developing
a logic model for a resea rch proj ect.
http:/
/www.unitedway.org/Outcomes/Resources/MPO/index.cfm
Web site from the United Way's Outcome Mea su rement
Resource Network, demonstra ting th e use of
logic models in cla rifying and com municating outcomes.
http:/ /www.cdc.gov/eval/resources.htm#logic%20modcl
Web site from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
Evaluatio1 Working Group, containing
logic model resources.

1. Define the term logic model.
2. Describe th e difference between program activities, program
outputs, and program outcomes.
3. Discuss the purpose of including lines with arrows in logic
models.
4. Discuss the relationship between a program's theory of
change and its logic model.
5. Describe the uses of logic models.
SESSIONS
Case Histories
Editors
Sara-Beth Plummer
Sara Makris
Sally Margaret Brocksen
Published by
Laureate International Universities Publishing, Inc.
650 S. Exeter Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
www.laureate.net
Director, Program Design: Lauren Mason Carris
Content Development Manager: Jason Jones
Content Development Specialist: Sandra Shon
Production Services: Absolute Service, Inc.

Editorial Services: Christina Myers
Copyright © 2014 by Laureate Education, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be
reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any
means, including
photocopying, recording, any information storage and retrieval
systems, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the
prior
written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief
quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other
noncom-
mercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission
requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Content
Development
Specialist,” at the address above.
ISBN-13: 978-1-62458-012-3 (VitalSource edition)
First Edition 14 15 16 17 18 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Editors
Sara-Beth Plummer, PhD, MSW
Walden University
Sara Makris, PhD
Laureate Education, Inc.
Sally Margaret Brocksen, PhD, MSW
Walden University

Contributors
Marlene Coach, EdD, MSW, ACSW, LSW
Walden University
Eileen V. Frishman, MSW, ACSW, LCSW-R, CH
Mary E. Larscheid, PhD, MSW, LICSW
Walden University
Vanessa Norris, MSW, LCSW
West Chester University
Sara-Beth Plummer, PhD, MSW
Walden University
Stephanie C. Sanger, MA, MSS, LSW
Assistant Director, RHD, Tri-County Supportive Housing
Eric Youn, PhD, LMSW
Walden University
iii
Contents
Introduction 1
Part 1: Foundation Year 2
The Hernandez Family 3
The Parker Family 6

The Logan Family 9
The Johnson Family 11
Part 2: Concentration Year 14
The Levy Family 15
The Bradley Family 17
The Petrakis Family 20
The Cortez Family 23
Appendix 26
Reflection Questions 27
The Hernandez Family 27
The Parker Family 28
The Logan Family 30
The Johnson Family 31
The Levy Family 32
The Bradley Family 33
The Petrakis Family 35
The Cortez Family 36
Trademarks and Disclaimers 38

iv
Introduction
The following eight cases are based on the true experiences of
social workers in the field, although names and other
identifying circumstances have been changed. The narratives in
this book, combined with filmed repre-
sentations of scenes inspired by the cases, provide you an
opportunity to use true-to-life cases as an experiential
learning tool. Whereas some academic programs, professors, or
instructors may offer an occasional glimpse into
past social work experiences, this book and these cases weave
through multiple courses in your foundation and
concentration year. Like in true-to-life practice, you will follow
these cases through a variety of circumstances, prac-
tice behaviors, and learning opportunities. This unique format
for a social work program enables you to integrate
and connect the expected learning outcomes for each course.
Each case either explicitly or implicitly offers content
on practice skills, research, human behavior theory, and policy.
Further, you will see that each family’s concerns can
be addressed across all levels of practice, from micro to mezzo
to macro.
Approach this book as a series of cases to which you have been
assigned during your first professional experi-
ence in social work. We encourage you to use a critical eye to
analyze the approaches provided. Remember that
each practitioner has his or her own lens or perspective that
guides his or her practice and these cases, written in
the voices of each individual social worker, offer you authentic,
varied perspectives. As you review and dissect these

cases, consider your own lens and perspective as a future social
worker.
The families described in these cases have been connected to
social work services in myriad ways. Look closely at
how each family member is introduced to the social worker and
at the services and interventions that follow. Through
reading these cases and then watching them come to life on
video, you will see the skills used by social work practi-
tioners. Carefully identify for yourself how the social worker
engages, assesses, and intervenes with his or her client.
The social workers who provided these cases offer some of their
own personal thoughts about these cases as
a series of reflection questions. Use the answers to the
questions, posed to the social workers as they wrote these
stories, to gain additional insight into the decisions they made
to address their clients’ concerns. Reflect on the ques
tions and answers as a way to consider whether you would have
addressed the client or clients in the same manner.
Imagine your first day of practice, preparing for your first client
meeting. On your desk is a folder with the last
name of the client on the tab. You open the folder to find a case
history for your client—perhaps it details family
background, medical history, or an accounting of interactions
with other agencies. This book is like that folder,
preparing you for the client you will soon meet.
1
PART 1: FOUNDATION YEAR

2
The Hernandez Family
Juan Hernandez (27) and Elena Hernandez (25) are a married
Latino couple who were referred to the New York City
Administration for Children Services (ACS) for abuse
allegations. They have an 8-year-old son, Juan Jr.,
and a 6-year-old son, Alberto. They were married 7 years ago,
soon after Juan Jr. was born. Juan and Elena were
both born in Puerto Rico and raised in Queens, New York. They
rent a two-bedroom apartment in an apartment
complex where they have lived for 7 years. Elena works as
babysitter for a family that lives nearby, and Juan works
at the airport in the baggage department. Overall, their physical
health is good, although Elena was diagnosed with
diabetes this past year and Juan has some lower back issues
from loading and unloading bags. Both drink socially
with friends and family. Juan goes out with friends on the
weekends sometimes to “blow off steam,” having six to
eight beers, and Elena drinks sparingly, only one or two drinks
a month. Both deny any drug use at all. While they
do not attend church regularly, both identify as being Catholic
and observe all religious holidays. Juan was arrested
once as a juvenile for petty theft, but that has been expunged
from his file. Elena has no criminal history. They
have a large support network of friends and family who live
nearby, and both Elena’s and Juan’s parents live within
blocks of their apartment and visit frequently. Juan and Elena
both enjoy playing cards with family and friends on
the weekends and taking the boys out to the park and beach near
their home.

ACS was contacted by the school social worker from Juan Jr.’s
school after he described a punishment his parents
used when he talked back to them. He told her that his parents
made him kneel for hours while holding two encyclo-
pedias (one in each hand) and that this was a punishment used
on multiple occasions. The ACS worker deemed this
a credible concern and made a visit to the home. During the
visit, the parents admitted to using this particular form
of punishment with their children when they misbehaved. In
turn, the social worker from ACS mandated the family
to attend weekly family sessions and complete a parenting
group at their local community mental health agency.
In her report sent to the mental health agency, the ACS social
worker indicated that the form of punishment used by
the parents was deemed abusive and that the parents needed to
learn new and appropriate parenting skills. She also
suggested they receive education about child development
because she believed they had unrealistic expectations of
how children at their developmental stage should behave. This
was a particular concern with Juan Sr., who repeat-
edly stated that if the boys listened, stayed quiet, and followed
all of their rules they would not be punished. There
was a sense from the ACS worker that Juan Sr. treated his sons,
especially Juan Jr., as adults and not as children.
This was exhibited, she believed, by a clear lack of patience and
understanding on his part when the boys did not
follow all of his directions perfectly or when they played in the
home. She mandated family sessions along with the
parenting classes to address these issues.
During the intake session, when I met the family for the first
time, both Juan and Elena were clearly angry that
they had been referred to parenting classes and family sess ions.
They both felt they had done nothing wrong, and
they stated that they were only punishing their children as they
were punished as children in Puerto Rico. They said

that their parents made them hold heavy books or other objects
as they kneeled and they both stressed that at times
the consequences for not behaving had been much worse. Both
Juan and Elena were “beaten” (their term) by their
parents. Elena’s parents used a switch, and Juan’s parents used
a belt. As a result, they feel they are actually quite
lenient with their children, and they said they never hit them
and they never would. Both stated that they love their
children very much and struggle to give them a good life. They
both stated that the boys are very active and don’t
always follow the rules and the kneeling punishment is the only
thing that works when they “don’t want to listen.”
They both admitted that they made the boys hold two large
encyclopedias for up to two hours while kneeling
when they did something wrong. They stated the boys are
“hyperactive” and “need a lot of attention.” They said
they punish Juan Jr. more often because he is particularly
defiant and does not listen and also because he is older
and should know better. They see him as a role model for his
younger brother and feel he should take that respon-
sibility to heart. His misbehavior indicates to them that he is not
taking that duty seriously and therefore he should
be punished, both to learn his lesson and to show his younger
brother what could happen if he does not behave.
During the intake meeting, Juan Sr. stated several times that he
puts in overtime any time he can because money
is “tight.” He expressed great concern about having to attend
the parenting classes and family sessions, as it would
interfere with that overtime. Elena appeared anxious during the
initial meeting and repeatedly asked if they were
going to lose the boys. I told her I could not assure her that they
would not, but I could assist her and her husband
through this process by making sure we had a plan that satisfied
the ACS worker’s requirements. I told them it

3
SESSIONS: CASE HISTORIES • THE HERNANDEZ FAMILY
would be up to them to complete those plans successfully. I
offered
my support through this process and conveyed empathy around
their
response to the situation.
The Hernandez Family
Juan Hernandez: father, 27
Elena Hernandez: mother, 25
Juan Hernandez Jr.: son, 8
Alberto Hernandez: son, 6
or immediately after the PPP so that they did not have to come
to
the agency more than once a week. They agreed that this would
be helpful because they did not have money for
multiple trips to the agency, although Juan Sr. stated that this
would still affect his ability to work overtime on that
day. I asked if they had any goals they wanted to work toward
during our sessions. Initially they were reluctant to
share anything, and then Elena suggested that a discussion on
money management would be helpful. I told them
I w ould be their primary contact at the agency—meeting with
them for the family sessions and co-facilitating the
PPP group with an intern. I explained my limitations around

confidentiality, and they signed a form acknowledging
that I was required to share information about our sessions with
the ACS worker. I informed them that the PPP is an
evidenced-based program and explained its meaning. I informed
them that there is a pre- and post-test administered
along with the program and specific guidelines about missed
classes. They were informed that if they missed more
than three classes, their participation would be deemed
incomplete and they would not get their PPP certification.
Initially, when the couple attended parenting sessions and
family sessions, Juan Sr. expressed feelings of anger
and resentment for being mandated to attend services at the
agency. Several times he either refused to participate
by remaining quiet or spoke to the social worker and intern in a
demeaning manner. He did this by questioning our
ability to teach the PPP and the effectiveness of the program
itself, wanting to know how this was going to make
him a better parent. He also reiterated his belief that his form of
discipline worked and that it was exactly what his
family members used for years on him and his relatives. He
asked, “If it worked for them, why can’t that form of
punishment work for me and my children?” He emphasized that
these were his children. He maintained throughout
the sessions that he never hit his children and never would.
Both he and Elena often talked about their love for their
children and the devastation they would feel if they were ever
taken away from them.
Treatment consisted of weekly parenting classes with the goal
of teaching them effective and safe discipline skills
(such as setting limits through the use of time-out and taking
away privileges). Further, the classes emphasized the
importance of recognizing age-appropriate behavior. We spent
sessions reviewing child development techniques to
help boost their children’s self-esteem and sense of confidence.

We also talked about managing one’s frustration
(such as when to take a break when angry) and helping their
children to do the same.
Family sessions were built around helping the family members
express themselves in a safe environment. The
parents and the children were asked to talk about how they felt
about each other and the reason they were mandated
to treatment. They were asked to share how they felt while at
home interacting with one another. I thought it was of
particular importance to have them talk about their feelings
related to the call to ACS, as I was unsure how Juan Sr.
felt about Juan Jr.’s report to the social worker. It was
necessary to assist them with processing this situation so that
there were no residual negative feelings between father and son.
I asked them to role-play—having each member act
like another member of the household. This was very effective
in helping Juan Sr. see how his boys view him and
his behavior toward them when he comes home from work. As a
result of this exercise, he verbalized his newfound
clarity around how the boys have been seeing him as a very
angry and negative father.
I also used sessions to explore the parents’ backgrounds. Using
a genogram, we identified patterns among their
family members that have continued through generations. These
patterns included the use of discipline to maintain
order in the home and the potentially unrealistic expectations
the elders had for their children and grandchildren.
Elena stated that she was treated like an adult and had the
responsibilities of a person much older than herself while
she was still very young. Juan Sr. said he felt responsible for
bringing money into the home at an early age. He was
forced by his parents to get working papers as soon as he turned
14. His paychecks were then taken by his parents
each week and used to pay for groceries and other bills. He

expressed anger at his parents for encouraging him to
drop out of high school so that he could get more than one job
to help out with the finances.
Other sessions focused on the burden they felt related to their
finances and how that burden might be felt by
the boys, just as Juan Sr. might have felt growing up. In one
session, Juan Jr. expressed his fears of being evicted
and the lights being turned off, because his father often talked
of not having money for bills. Both boys expressed
sadness over the amount of time their father spent at work and
stressed their desire to do more things with him
at night and on the weekends. Both parents stated they did not
realize the boys understood their anxieties around
4
Together we discussed the plan for treatment, following the
requirements of ACS; they would attend a 12-week Positive
Parenting
Program (PPP) along with weekly family sessions. In an effort
to
reduce some of the financial burden of attending multiple
meetings
at the agency, I offered to meet with the family either just
before
SESSIONS: CASE HISTORIES • THE HERNANDEZ FAMILY
paying bills and felt sad that they worried about these issues.
We also
took a couple of sessions to address money management. We
worked
together to create a budget and identify unnecessary expenses

that
might be eliminated.
It was clear that this was a family that loved each other very
much.
Juan Sr. and Elena were often affectionate with each other and
their
sons. Once the initial anger subsided, both Juan Sr. and Elena
fully
Key to Acronyms
ACS: Administration for
Children Services
PPP: Positive Parenting Program
engaged in both the family sessions and the PPP. We assessed
their progress monthly and highlighted that progress.
I also was aware that it was important to learn about the
Hernandez family history and culture in order to under-
stand their perspective and emotions around the ACS referral. I
asked them many questions about their beliefs,
customs, and culture to learn about how they view parenthood,
marriage roles, and children’s behaviors. They were
always open to these questions and seemed pleased that I asked
about these things rather than assumed I knew the
answers.
During the course of treatment they missed a total of four PPP
classes. I received a call from Elena each time
letting me know that Juan Sr. had to work overtime and they
would miss the class. She was always apologetic and
would tell me she would like to know what they missed in the
class so that she could review it on her own. During
a call after the fourth missed parenting class, I reminded Elena

that in order to obtain the certificate of completion,
they were expected to attend a minimum of nine classes. By
missing this last class, I explained, they were not going
to get the certificate. Elena expressed fear about this and asked
if there was any way they could still receive it. She
explained that they only had one car and that she had to miss
the classes when Juan Sr. could not go because she
had no way of getting to the agency on her own. I told her that I
did not have the authority to change the rules
around the number of classes missed and that I understood how
disappointed she was to hear they would not get
the certificate. When I told her I had to call the ACS worker and
let her know, Elena got very quiet and started to
cry. I spoke with her for a while, and we talked about the
possible repercussions.
I met with my supervisor and informed her of what had
occurred. I knew I had to tell the ACS worker that they
would not receive the certificate of completion this round, and I
felt bad for the situation Juan Sr. and Elena and
their boys were now in. I had been meeting with them for family
sessions and parenting classes for almost three
months by this point and had built a strong rapport. I feared that
once I called the ACS worker, that rapport would
be broken and they would no longer want to work with me. I
saw them as loving and caring parents who were trying
the best they could to provide for their family. They had been
making progress, particularly Juan Sr., and I did not
want their work to be in vain.
I also questioned whether the parenting and family sessions
were really necessary for their situation. I felt there
was a lack of cultural competence on the part of the ACS
worker—she had made some rather judgmental and
insensitive comments on the phone to me during the referral. I
wondered if there was a rush to judgment on her

part because their form of discipline was not commonly used in
the United States. In my own professional opinion,
some time-limited education on parenting and child
development would have sufficed, as opposed to the 3-month
parenting program and family sessions.
My supervisor and I also discussed the cultural competence at
the agency and the fact that the class schedule may
not fit a working family’s life. We discussed bringing this
situation to a staff meeting to strategize and see if we had
the resources to offer the PPP multiple times during the week,
perhaps allowing clients to make up a class on a day
other than their original class day.
I met with Elena and Juan Sr. and let them know I had to
contact the ACS worker about the missed classes.
I explained that this was something I had to do by law. They
told me they understood, although another round of
parenting classes would be a financial burden and they had
already struggled to attend the current round of classes
each week. I validated their concerns and told them we were
going to look at offering the program more than once
a week. I also told them that when I spoke to the ACS worker, I
would also highlight their progress in family and
parenting sessions.
I called the ACS worker and told her all the positive progress
the parents had made over the previous 3 months
before letting her know that they had missed too many classes
to obtain the PPP certificate. The ACS worker was
pleased with the progress I described but said she would
recommend to her supervisor that the parents take the
PPP over again until a certificate was obtained. She would wait
to hear what her supervisor’s decision was on this
matter. She said that family sessions could end at this point. In
the end, the supervisor decided the parents needed

to come back to the agency and just make up the four classes
they missed. Elena and Juan Sr. were able to complete
this requirement and received their certificate, and the ACS
case was closed. They later returned on their own for a
financial literacy class newly offered at the agency free of
charge.
5
The Parker Family
Sara is a 72-year-old widowed Caucasian female who lives in a
two-bedroom apartment with her 48-year-old daughter,
Stephanie, and six cats. Sara and her daughter have lived
together for the past 10 years, since
Stephanie returned home after a failed relationship and was
unable to live independently. Stephanie has a diagnosis
of bipolar disorder, and her overall physical health is good.
Stephanie has no history of treatment for alcohol or
substance abuse; during her teens she drank and smoked
marijuana but no longer uses these substances. When
she was 16 years old, Stephanie was hospitalized after her first
bipolar episode. She had attempted suicide by swal-
lowing a handful of Tylenol® and drinking half a bottle of
vodka after her first boyfriend broke up with her. She has
been hospitalized three times in the past 4 years when she
stopped taking her medications and experienced suicidal
ideation. Stephanie’s current medications are Lithium, Paxil®,
Abilify®, and Klonopin®.
Stephanie recently had a brief hospitalization as a result of
depressive symptoms. She attends a mental health
drop-in center twice a week to socialize with friends and

receives outpatient psychiatric treatment at a local mental
health clinic for medication management and weekly therapy.
She is maintaining a part-time job at a local super-
market where she bags groceries and is currently being trained
to become a cashier. Stephanie currently has active
Medicare and receives Social Security Disability (SSD).
Sara has recently been hospitalized for depression and has some
physical issues. She has documented high
blood pressure and hyperthyroidism, she is slightly
underweight, and she is displaying signs of dementia. Sara has
no history of alcohol or substance abuse. Her current
medications are Lexapro® and Zyprexa®. Sara has Medicare
and receives Social Security benefits and a small pension. She
attends a day treatment program for seniors that
is affiliated with a local hospital in her neighborhood. Sara
attends the program 3 days a week from 9:00 a.m. to
2:00 p.m., and van service is provided free of charge.
A telephone call was made to Adult Protective Services (APS)
by the senior day treatment social worker when
Sara presented with increased confusion, poor attention to daily
living skills, and statements made about Stephanie’s
behavior. Sara told the social worker at the senior day treatment
program that, “My daughter is very argumentative
and is throwing all of my things out.” She reported, “We are
fighting like cats and dogs; I’m afraid of her and of
losing all my stuff.”
During the home visit, the APS worker observed that the living
room was very cluttered, but that the kitchen was
fairly clean, with food in the refrigerator and cabinets. Despite
the clutter, all of the doorways, including the front
door, had clear egress. The family lives on the first floor of the
apartment building and could exit the building without
difficulty in case of emergency. The litter boxes were also fairly

clean, and there was no sign of vermin in the home.
Upon questioning by the APS worker, Sara denied that she was
afraid of her daughter or that her daughter had
been physically abusive. In fact, the worker observed that
Stephanie had a noticeable bruise on her forearm, which
appeared defensive in nature. When asked about the bruise,
Stephanie reported that she had gotten it when her
mother tried to grab some items out of her arms that she was
about to throw out. Stephanie admitted to throwing
things out to clean up the apartment, telling the APS worker,
“I’m tired of my mother’s hoarding.” Sara agreed with
the description of the incident. Both Sara and Stephanie
admitted to an increase in arguing, but denied physical
violence. Sara stated, “I didn’t mean to hurt Stephanie. I was
just trying to get my things back.”
The APS worker observed that Sara’s appearance was unkempt
and disheveled, but her overall hygiene was
adequate (i.e., clean hair and clothes). Stephanie was neatly
groomed with good hygiene. The APS worker deter-
mined that no one was in immediate danger to warrant removal
from the home but that the family was in need of
a referral for Intensive Case Management (ICM) services. It was
clear there was some conflict in the home that had
led to physical confrontations. Further, the house had hygiene
issues, including trash and items stacked in the living
room and Sara’s room, which needed to be addressed. The APS
worker indicated in her report that if not adequately
addressed, the hoarding might continue to escalate and create an
unsafe and unhygienic environment, thus leading
to a possible eviction or recomme ndation for separation and
relocation for both women.
As the ICM worker, I visited the family to assess the situation
and the needs of the clients. Stephanie said she

was very angry with her mother and sick of her compulsive
shopping and hoarding. Stephanie complained that
they did not have any visitors and she was ashamed to invite
friends to the home due to the condition of the apart-
ment. When I asked Sara if she saw a problem with so many
items littering the apartment, Sara replied, “I need
all of these things.” Stephanie complained that when she tried to
clean up and throw things out, her mother went
6
SESSIONS: CASE HISTORIES • THE PARKER FAMILY
7
outside and brought it all back in again. We discussed the need
to
clean up the apartment and make it habitable for them to remain
in their home, based on the recommendations of the APS
worker. I
also discussed possible housing alternatives, such as senior
housing
for Sara and a supportive apartment complex for Stephanie. Sara
and Stephanie both stated they wanted to remain in their
apartment
together, although Stephanie questioned whether her mother
would
cooperate with cleaning up the apartment. Sara was adamant
that she did not want to be removed from their apart-
ment and would try to accept what needed to be done so they
would not be forced to move.

Stephanie reported her mother is estranged from her younger
sister, Jane, because of the hoarding. Stephanie
also mentioned she was dissatisfied with her mother’s
psychiatric treatment and felt she was not getting the help
she needed. She reported that her mother was very anxious and
was having difficulty sleeping, staying up until all
hours of the night, and buying items from a televised shopping
network. Sara’s psychiatrist had recently increased
her Zyprexa prescription dosage to help reduce her agitation and
possible bipolar disorder (as evidenced by the
compulsive shopping), but Stephanie did not feel this had been
helpful and actually wondered if it was contributing
to her mother’s confusion. I asked for permission to contact
Jane and both of their outpatient treatment teams, and
both requests were granted.
I immediately contacted Jane, who initially was uncooperative
and stated she was unwilling to assist. Jane is
married, with three children, and lives 3 hours away. At the
beginning of our phone call, Jane said, “I’ve been
through this before and I’m not helping this time.” When I
asked if I could at least keep in touch with her to keep her
informed of the situation and any decisions that might need to
be made, Jane agreed. After a few more minutes of
discussion around my role and responsibilities, I was able to
establish a bit of rapport with Jane. She then started to
ask me questions and share some insight into what was going on
in her mother and sister’s home.
Jane informed me that she was very angry with her mother and
had not brought her children to the apartment
in years because of its condition. She said that her mother
started compulsively shopping and hoarding when she
and Stephanie were in high school, and while her father had
tried to contain it as best he could, the apartment was
always cluttered. She said this had been a source of conflict and

embarrassment for her and Stephanie all of their
lives. She said that after her father died of a heart attack, the
hoarding got worse, and neither she nor Stephanie
could control it. Jane also told me she felt her mother was
responsible for Stephanie’s relapses. Jane reported that
Stephanie had been compliant with her medication and
treatment in the past, and that up until a few years ago, had
not been hospitalized for several years. Jane had told Stephanie
in the past to move out.
Jane also told me that she “is angry with the mental health
system.” Sara had been recently hospitalized for
depression, and Jane took pictures of the apartment to show the
inpatient treatment team what her mother was
going home to. Jane felt they did not treat the situation
seriously because they discharged her mother back to the
apartment. Stephanie had been hospitalized at the same time as
her mother, but in a different hospital, and Jane had
shown the pictures to her sister’s treatment team as well.
Initially the social worker recommended that Stephanie not
return to the apartment because of the state of the home, but
when that social worker was replaced with someone
new, Stephanie was also sent back home.
When I inquired if there were any friends or family members
who might be available and willing to assist in
clearing out the apartment, Jane said her mother had few friends
and was not affiliated with a church group or
congregation. However, she acknowledged that there were two
cousins who might help, and she offered to contact
them and possibly help herself. She said that she would ask her
husband to help as well, but she wanted assurance
that her mother would cooperate. I explained that while I could
not promise that her mother would cooperate
completely, her mother had stated that she was willing to do
whatever it took to keep living in her home. Jane

seemed satisfied with this response and pleased with the plan.
I then arranged to meet with Sara and her psychiatrist to discuss
her increased anxiety and confusion and the
compulsive shopping. I requested a referral for neuropsyc hiatric
testing to assess possible cognitive changes or
decline in functioning. A test was scheduled, and it indicated
some cognitive deficits, but at the end of testing, Sara
told the psychologist who administered the tests she had
stopped taking her medications for depression. It was
determined Sara’s depression and discontinuation of medication
could have affected her test performance and it
was recommended she be retested in 6 months. I suggested a
referral to a geriatric psychiatrist for Sara, as she
appeared to need more specialized treatment. Sara’s
psychologist was in agreement.
Because they had both stated that they did not want to be
removed from their home, I worked with Sara and
Stephanie as a team to address cleaning the apartment. All
agreed that they would begin working together to clean
the house for 1 hour a day until arrangements were made for
additional help from family members. In an attempt
The Parker Family
Sara Parker: mother, 72
Stephanie Parker: daughter, 48
Jane Rodgers: daughter, 45
SESSIONS: CASE HISTORIES • THE PARKER FAMILY

8
to alleviate Sara’s anxiety around throwing out the items, I
suggested
using three bags for the initial cleanup: one bag was for items
she
could throw out, the second bag was for “maybes,” and the third
was for “not ready yet.” I scheduled home visits at the
designated
cleanup time to provide support and encouragement and to
inter-
vene in disputes. I also contacted Sara’s treatment team to
inform
them of the cleanup plans and suggested that Sara might need
addi-
tional support and observation as it progressed. Jane notified me
that her two cousins were willing to assist with the cleanup,
make
minor repairs, and paint the apartment. Jane offered to schedule
a date that would be convenient for her and her
cousins to come and help out.
We then discussed placement for at least some of the cats,
because six seemed too many for a small apartment.
Sara and Stephanie were at first adamant that they could not
give up their cats, but with further discussion admitted
it had become extremely difficult to manage caring for them all.
They both eventually agreed to each keep their
favorite cat and find homes for the other four. Sara and
Stephanie made fliers and brought them to their respective
treatment programs to hand out. Stephanie also brought fliers
about the cats to her place of employment. Three of
the four cats were adopted within a week.
During one home visit, Stephanie pulled me aside and said she
had changed her mind—she did not want to

continue to live with her mother. She requested that I complete
a housing application for supportive housing stating,
“I want to get on with my life.” Stephanie had successfully
completed cashier training, and the manager of the super-
market was pleased with her performance and was prepared to
hire her as a part-time cashier soon. She expressed
concern about how her mother would react to this decision and
asked me for assistance telling her.
We all met together to discuss Stephanie’s decision to apply for
an apartment. Sara was initially upset and had
some difficulty accepting this decision. Sara said she had fears
about living alone, but when we discussed senior
living alternatives, Sara was adamant she wanted to remain in
her apartment. Sara said she had lived alone for a
number of years after her husband died and felt she could adjust
again. I offered to help her stay in her apartment
and explore home care services and programs available that will
meet her current needs to remain at home.
Key to Acronyms
APS: Adult Protective Services
ICM: Intensive Case Management
services
SSD: Social Security Disability
The Logan Family
Eboni Logan is a 16-year-old biracial African
American/Caucasian female in 11th grade. She is an honors

student, has been taking Advanced Placement courses, and runs
track. Eboni plans to go to college and major
in nursing. She is also active in choir and is a member of the
National Honor Society and the student council. For the
last 6 months, Eboni has been working 10 hours a week at a fast
food restaurant. She recently passed her driver’s
test and has received her license.
Eboni states that she believes in God, but she and her mother do
not belong to any organized religion. Her father
attends a Catholic church regularly and takes Eboni with him on
the weekends that she visits him.
Eboni does not smoke and denies any regular alcohol or drug
usage. She does admit to occasionally drinking
when she is at parties with her friends, but denies ever being
drunk. There is no criminal history. She has had no
major health problems.
Eboni has been dating Darian for the past 4 months. He is a 17-
year-old African American male. According to
Eboni, Darian is also on the track team and does well in school.
He is a B student and would like to go to college,
possibly for something computer related. Darian works at a
grocery store 10–15 hours a week. He is healthy and
has no criminal issues. Darian also denies smoking or regular
alcohol or drug usage. He has been drunk a few times,
but Eboni reports that he does not think it is a problem. Eboni
and Darian became sexually active soon after they
started dating, and they were using withdrawal for birth control.
Eboni’s mother, Darlene, is 34 years old and also biracial
African American/Caucasian. She works as an adminis-
trative assistant for a local manufacturing company. Eboni has
lived with her mother and her maternal grandmother,
May, from the time she was born. May is a 55-year-old African

American woman who works as a paraprofessional
in an elementary school. They still live in the same apartment
where May raised Darlene.
Darlene met Eboni’s father, Anthony, when she was 17, the
summer before their senior year in high school.
Anthony is 34 years old and Caucasian. They casually dated for
about a month, and after they broke up, Darlene
discovered she was pregnant and opted to keep the baby.
Although they never married each other, Anthony has
been married twice and divorced once. He has four other
children in addition to Eboni. She visits her father and
stepmother every other weekend. Anthony works as a mechanic
and pays child support to Darlene.
Recently, Eboni took a pregnancy test and learned that she is 2
months pregnant. She actually did not know
she was pregnant because her periods were not always
consistent and she thought she had just skipped a couple
of months. Eboni immediately told her best friend, Brandy, and
then Darian about her pregnancy. He was shocked
at first and suggested that it might be best to terminate. Darian
has not told her explicitly to get an abortion, but
he feels he cannot provide for her and the baby as he would like
and thinks they should wait to have children. He
eventually told her he would support her in any way he could,
whatever she decides. Brandy encouraged Eboni to
meet with the school social worker.
During our first meeting, Eboni told me that she had taken a
pregnancy test the previous week and it was positive.
At that moment, the only people who knew she was pregnant
were her best friend and boyfriend. She had not told
her parents and was not sure how to tell them. She was very
scared about what they would say to her. We talked
about how she could tell them and discussed various responses

she might receive. Eboni agreed she would tell her
parents over the weekend and see me the following Monday.
During our meeting I asked her if she used contracep-
tion, and she told me that she used the withdrawal method.
Eboni met with me that following Monday, as planned, and she
was very tearful. She had told her parents and
grandmother over the weekend. Eboni shared that her mother
and grandmother had become visibly upset when
they learned of the pregnancy, and Darlene had yelled and
called her a slut. Darlene told Eboni she wanted her to
have a different life than she had had and told her she should
have an abortion. May cried and held Eboni in her
arms for a long time. When Eboni told her father, he was
shocked and just kept shaking his head back and forth, not
saying a word. Then he told her that she had to have this child
because abortion was a sin. He offered to help her
and suggested that she move in with him and her stepmother.
Darlene did not speak to Eboni for the rest of the weekend. Her
grandmother said she was scheduling an appoint-
ment with the doctor to make sure she really was pregnant.
Eboni was apprehensive about going to the doctor, so
we discussed what the first appointment usually entails. I
approached the topic of choices and decisions if it was
confirmed that she was pregnant, and she said she had no idea
what she would do.
9
10
SESSIONS: CASE HISTORIES • THE LOGAN FAMILY

Two days later, Eboni came to see me with the results of her
doctor’s appointment. The doctor confirmed the pregnancy, said
her hormone levels were good, and placed her on prenatal
vitamins.
Eboni had had little morning sickness and no overt issues due to
the
pregnancy. Her grandmother went with her to the appointment,
but
her mother was still not speaking to her. Eboni was very upset
about
the situation with her mother. At one point she commented that
parents are supposed to support their kids when they are in
trouble
and that she would never treat her daughter the way her mother
was
treating her. I offered to meet with Eboni and her mother to
discuss
the situation. Although apprehensive, Eboni gave me permission
to call her mother and set up an appointment.
I left a message for Darlene to contact me about scheduling a
meeting. She called back and agreed to meet with
Eboni and me. When I informed Eboni of the scheduled
meeting, she thanked me. She told me that she was going
to spend the upcoming weekend with her father, and that she
was apprehensive about how it would go. When I
approached the topic of a decision about the pregnancy, she
stated that she was not certain but was leaning in
one direction, which she did not share with me. I suggested we
get together before the meeting with her mother to
discuss the weekend with her father.
At our next session, Eboni said she thought she knew what to do
but after spending the weekend with her father
was still confused. Eboni said her father went on at length about
how God gives life, and that if she had an abortion,

she would go to hell. Eboni was very scared. Anthony had taken
her to church and told the priest that Eboni was
pregnant and asked him to pray for her. Eboni said this made
her feel uncomfortable.
When I met with Eboni and her mother, Darlene shared her
thoughts about Eboni’s pregnancy and her belief
that she should have an abortion. She said she knows how hard
it is to be a single mother and does not want this
for Eboni. She believes that because Eboni is so young, she
should do as she says. Eboni was very quiet during the
session, and when asked what she thought, said she did not
know. At the end of the session, nothing was resolved
between Eboni and her mother.
When I met with Eboni the next day to process the session, she
said that when they got home, she and her
mother talked without any yelling. Her mother told Eboni she
loved her and wanted what was best for her. May said
she would support Eboni no matter what she decided and would
help her if she kept the baby.
Eboni was concerned because she thought she was beginning to
look pregnant and her morning sickness had
gotten worse. I addressed her overall health, and she said that
she wanted to sleep all the time, and that when she
was not nauseated, all she did was eat. Eboni is taking her
prenatal vitamins in case she decides to have the baby.
Only a couple of her friends know about the pregnancy, and
they had different thoughts on what they thought
she should do. One friend even bought her a onesie. In addition,
Eboni was concerned that her grades were being
affected by the situation, possibly affecting her ability to attend
college. She was also worried about how a pregnancy
or baby would affect her chances of getting a track scholarship.
In response to her many concerns, I educated her

MGT 3302 Case study Last updated July 26, 2019 Page 1

MGT 3302 Case study Last updated July 26, 2019 Page 1

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie MGT 3302 Case study Last updated July 26, 2019 Page 1

Ähnlich wie MGT 3302 Case study Last updated July 26, 2019 Page 1 (20)

Mehr von DioneWang844

Mehr von DioneWang844 (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

MGT 3302 Case study Last updated July 26, 2019 Page 1