EXHIBIT 3 Ohio DYS PREP Observational Site Monitoring Form.pdf

OHIO Personal Responsibility Education Program (PREP) Observational Site Monitoring Form - March 2022

Organization & Implementation Site Address: Facilitator(s):

TA Observer Name: Curriculum and Module Observed RTR: Module MPC: Module

Date of Site Visit: Time of Visit:

Was the lesson co-facilitated? : Yes No (if yes complete a separate form for each facilitator)

Youth Participant Characteristics:

# Males # Females

Approximate age range: to

INSTRUCTIONS: The purpose of this observation form is to measure the quality of curriculum implementation. Please follow the instructions below when completing the form.

Prior to site visit, the assigned technical assistance contractor should obtain/review the lesson plan for the session they will observe. The lesson plan should incorporate any planned adaptation. The site visit observation form should be completed after viewing the entire session, but you should read through the question prior to the observation. It will be helpful to take notes during your viewing. For example, for Question 1, rate in your notes each time a facilitator gives an explanation. On page 5, you will find space to record additional observations.

INSTRUCTIONS: The following questions assess the overall quality of the curriculum session and delivery of information. Use your best judgment. Please do not change the provided scoring system—do not circle multiple numbers or write intermediate numbers such as 1.5.

1 | P a g e

Was visit in-person or virtual?:

Observational Site Monitoring Form

1. In general, how clear were the facilitator’s instructions for the activities?

Not clear 2 3

Somewhat clear 4 5

Very clear

1: Most participants do not understand the instructions and cannot proceed; many questions are asked.

3: About half of the group understands, and the other half asks for clarification.

5: 90%-100% of the participants can begin and complete the activity/discussion as intended with no hesitation and no questions.

2. To what extent did the facilitator prevent running over time during the session and activities?

Not timely 2 3

Somewhat timely

4 5 Very timely

1: The facilitator does not have enough time to complete the material (particularly at the end of the session and regularly allows discussion to drag on (leading participants to seem bored or begin discussing unrelated issues) 3: The facilitator misses a few points because of time constraints and sometimes allows discussions to drag on.

5: The facilitator completes all content, activities, and discussions in a timely manner (using the suggested time limitations in the program manual)

3. To what extent did the presentation of materials seem rushed or hurried?

Very rushed 2 3

Somewhat rushed 4 5

Not rushed

1: The facilitator does not allow time for discussion, does not have time for examples, and/or tells participants that they are in a hurry. The facilitator’s body language suggest stress or hurriedness.

3: The facilitator omits some discussion or activities and sometime presents but does not explain material.

5: The facilitator does not rush participants or discussion but still completes all the materials and appears relaxed.

4. To what extent did the facilitator manage participant behavior during the session and activities?

Not well managed 2 3

Managed somewhat 4 5

Well managed

1: The facilitator does not appear to address inappropriate behavior, and the quality of the session is significantly affected.

3: The facilitator has few difficulties managing participant behavior, but the quality of the session is not significantly affected.

5: The facilitator responds effectively to inappropriate behavior, and the quality of the session is not affected.

5. To what extent did participants appear to understand the material? (Use your best judgment based on participant conversation and feedback)

Little understanding

2 3 Some understanding

4 5 Good understanding

1: Less than 25% of participants seemed to understand.

3: About 50% of participants seemed to understand.

5: 75%-100% of participants seemed to understand.

2 | P a g e

6. How actively did participants engage in discussion and activities? (use your best judgment based on discussion and feedback)

Little participation

2 3 Some participation

4 5 Active participation

1: Less than 25% of participants engaged in discussions and activities.

3: About 50% of participants engaged in discussions and activities.

5: 75%-100% of participants engaged in discussions and activities.

7. Rate the facilitator on the following qualities:

a. Knowledge of the program

Poor

2 3 Average

4 5 Excellent

1: The facilitator could not answer questions, mispronounced words, and read from the manual.

5: The facilitator provided relevant information beyond exactly what is written in the manual, seemed very familiar with the concepts, and answered question with ease.

b. Level of enthusiasm

Poor 2 3

Average 4 5

Excellent

1: The facilitator presented information in a dry and boring way, lacked personal connection to material, and/or appeared “burnt out”.

5: The facilitator made clear that the curriculum is a great opportunity, got participants talking and excited, and was outgoing.

c. Poise and confidence

Poor 2 3

Average 4 5

Excellent

1: The facilitator appeared nervous or hurried and did not have good eye contact with participants.

5: The facilitator did not hesitate to address participants’ concerns, was well organized, and was not nervous.

d. Rapport and communication with participants

Poor 2 3

Average 4 5

Excellent

1: The facilitator did not remember participants’ names, did not “connect” with participants, and acted in a distant or unfriendly manner.

5: The facilitator got participants talking and excited, was very friendly, used participants’ names when appropriate, and seemed to understand the target population and its needs.

3 | P a g e

e. Effectiveness in addressing questions/concerns

Poor 2 3

Average 4 5

Excellent

1: The facilitator engaged in “power struggles” with participants, responded negatively to comments, gave inaccurate information, and/or did not direct participants elsewhere for further information.

5: The facilitator answered questions of fact with information and questions of value with validation. If the facilitator did not know the answer, he or she was honest about it and directed participants elsewhere.

f. (If-applicable) coordination with co-facilitators

Poor 2 3

Average 4 5

Excellent

1: Transitions between facilitators were not smooth, one facilitator did not participate in the session, or facilitators did not appear to have planned their respective roles in the session.

5: Transitions between facilitators were smooth, both facilitators played a role, and each facilitator’s role appeared to be defined.

8. Rate the overall quality of the program session (This item assess both the extent of the material covered and performance of the facilitator)

Poor

2 3 Average

4 5 Excellent

Characteristics of poor session:

• The facilitator uses lecture-style presentation of content.

• The facilitator reads content from the manual.

• The facilitator stumbles along with content and fails to make connection with what has been discussed previously or what participants are contributing.

• The facilitator gets into power struggles with participants about content.

• The facilitator responds judgmentally.

• The facilitator has flat and boring style.

• The facilitator presents material in unorganized or random manner.

• The facilitator loses track of time.

• Participants are uninvolved.

Characteristics of excellent session:

• Participants are doing rather than talking about activities.

• The facilitator responds to questions non-judgmentally.

• The facilitator answers questions of fact with factual information and questions of value with validation.

• The facilitator practices good time management and is well organized.

• The facilitator has adequate pacing. The presentation is not too fast but does not drag.

• The facilitator uses effective checks for understanding.

4 | P a g e

9. Technical Assistance Key Findings (identify any specific points of concern, areas of improvements, and/or major accomplishments from this visit):

10. Is a follow-up site visit recommended Yes No ? If yes, select and provide justification for recommendation.

Facilitator provided medically inappropriate information

Unapproved and inappropriate adaptations were made to the session

Significant challenges in classroom management or ability to engage youth were observed

Inappropriate interaction and comments with youth participants

Number of youth who attended sessions did not make for an effective learning environment (ie, only two youth attended when 15 were projected, which negatively impacted discussions and activities)

11. Summary of Recommendations and Next Steps Plan of Action:

5 | P a g e