Dry. Paul and Dry. Elder explain how the majority of individuals “confuse ethics with behavior, In accordance with social conventions, religious beliefs, and the law Instead of seeing ethics as a domain unto Itself, a set of concepts ND principles that gulled us In determining what behavior helps or harms sentient creatures” (Paul & Elder, 2003).
Another definition of ethics given by Raymond Carrey and Emil Papooses explains ethics in the sense of conducting evaluations as not only “the study of right or wrong conduct but a descriptive discipline, involving the collection of interpretation of data on what people from various cultures believe, without consideration for the appropriateness or reasonableness of those beliefs or the finding of answers to specific questions, determining which Is reasonable and Hereford people should believe and examining the system or program to appraise the logical foundations and internal consistency” (Carrey, 2003).
Those conducting evaluations of a criminal Justice program should be “kind, open-minded, impartial, truthful, honest, compassionate, considerate, and honorable rather than being; deceitful, vindictive, prejudiced, bigoted, or self serving” (Paul & Elder, 2003). Many organizations or program leaders have according to Ruggeri begun “developing ethical principles to gulled the work of those conducting evaluations or search” (Ruggeri, 2004).
Ethical issues arising in evaluations of criminal justice programs are numerous and the importance of ethical individuals conducting the evaluation is important for the program and society as a whole. Evaluations of programs assist in recognizing successful tactics and shortcomings in a program as well as ensuring laws and policies are adequate and enforced. Individuals with a vested Interest In a criminal Justice program are able to make necessary changes and recommend successful practices to others If evaluations are conducted properly.
Numerous ethical issues must be explored when conducting evaluations of criminal justice programs. D. A. R. E. D. A. R. E (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), is a program implemented in schools worldwide. Goals of D. A. R. E. Involve, ” teaching children the dangers of drugs, alcohol, and gang activity as well as providing the children with the necessary skills to resist other Illegal activities” (Drew, 1999). Children become friendly with local law enforcement agents and begin forming bonds of trust leading to cooperation and less chance of criminal behavior from children.
D. A. R. E. Was started due to the excessive drug abuse and young people becoming targeted by drug dealers at a high rate. Young people today are being introduced to marijuana, hallucinogens, inhalants, tranquilizer, cocaine, meet, and other Illegal drugs on a dally basis (Drew, 1999). Programs such as D. A R. E. Necessitate ethical guidelines for evaluations and reasonable Ana moral Monolinguals to conduct ten evaluations. Individuals Evaluating D. A. R. E. Tentacle Issues Involving Dry. Paul and Dry.
Elder discuss problems arising when individuals conducting valuations in programs such as D. A. R. E. Either allows their “egocentric thought to interfere with the manner in which the program is evaluated or of the three modes of character integration the uncritical or self serving critical person conducts the evaluation” (Paul & Elder, 2003). Dry. Paul and Dry. Elder define the many egocentric type of thoughts individuals tend to use when conducting evaluations of a program such as D. A. R. E.
Individuals either : “forget evidence which does not support their thinking and remember evidence which does,” “think in an absolutist type way with n overly narrow point of view,” ” ignoring flagrant inconsistencies,” “ignore evidence or facts which contradict favored beliefs or values,” and “ignore complexities which would require modification in our belief system” ( Paul & Elder, 2003). Many individuals conducting evaluations have egotistical thought without realizing the problems with their train of thought. The other types of individuals conducting evaluations of programs such as D.
A. R. E. , whom should not be conducting evaluations, are according to Dry. Paul and Dry. Elder: “the uncritical person and the elf serving critical person” (Paul & Elder, 2003). Paul and Elder explain characteristics of the uncritical person as someone who is “unconcerned with the development of intellectual abilities,” ” manipulated by self serving critical persons,” and “easily indoctrinated” and,” the results are the evaluation leading to participants in the program becoming victims or not benefiting from the program” (Paul & Elder, 2003).
Paul and Elder continue by describing the self serving critical person as an individuals who, “develops intellectual abilities to serve one’s selfish interest without Edgar to the rights and needs of others, one who manipulates less sophisticated people, and the results are the D. A. R. E. Participants becoming directly or indirectly effected in a negative or harmful manner” (Paul & Elder, 2003). Egocentric thought or individuals whose actions are self serving or uncritical lead to disastrous results for the D.
A. R. E. , program. Although many of these types of individuals are unaware of the faults in their actions or thoughts the results from their evaluating D. A. R. E lead to failure of the program. Ethical Issues Arising From Unethical Individuals Conducting D. A. R. E. Evaluations Posada and Carrey discuss the numerous ethical issues stemming from evaluations conducted by unethical or self serving individuals. D. A. R. E is a program designed to assist young people in living a drug, alcohol, and crime free life.
This program not only benefits the participants but the community as a whole. Young people who are able to educate themselves and avoid participating in criminal activities become productive law abiding adults. Drug abuse and other criminal activity lead to death, disaster, and disease for the abuser and the members f the community. The D. A. R. E program prevents drug abuse, teenage pregnancies, gang membership, and brings the community together to work towards a crime free nation.
If evaluators of the program think or act unethically, intentionally or unintentionally, while conducting the program evaluation the disastrous results are numerous according to Posada and Carrey. Posada and Carrey describe the ethical issues of unethical conducting of D. A. R. E or any program to be considered is the client’s needs are not fully met or considered. The client’s needs not being met in D A R cause problems Walton ten community Ana ten Aragua problem Is spiraling out of control and D. A. R.
E at least curbs the drug problem as well as other criminal activities society must contend with. Posada and Carrey continue by explaining the D. A. R. E program cannot be conducted well or properly if the evaluations are conducted by individuals with egocentric type of thought, uncritical individuals, or self serving critical individuals. These types of individuals also give inadequate descriptions of the program and procedures. Inadequate findings can cause harm to he participants and community, lead to unplanned effects, and funding for the program will be impossible to receive.
Research designs should fit the needs of the D. A. R. E participants and not the evaluator (Posada & Carrey, 2003). Evaluations of the program dictate the future of the program, the design of the program, and the funding of the program. Evaluations help assist with making improvements in the program and finding the areas of strengths and weaknesses within the program. D. A. R. E is an essential part of fighting the war on drugs and any unethical valuations could lead to devastating results for America. Types of Individuals Necessary to Conduct D.
A. R. E. Evaluations To conduct a program evaluation properly for D. A. R. E the individuals conducting the evaluation must be the fair minded person Paul and Elder discuss. The fair minded person is an individual who, “develops intellectual abilities to serve one’s own interests while respecting the rights and needs of others, acts as forthrightly as possible, which results in people being treated reasonably and fairly. ” These individuals are ethical, fair and Just according o Paul and Elder (Paul & Elder, 2003).
The interest of the evaluator should be that of a drug free society and assisting young people in resisting drug abuse and other criminal activities. Results cannot be twisted to fit the agenda of the school, politicians, or others but to benefit the participants and members of the community. Individuals such as the fair minded person conducting evaluations of the D. A. R. E program, lead to adequate funding, program design fitting the need of the client, adequate descriptions of the program, and no harm coming to participants.
Only a air minded person can conduct proper evaluations and when law enforcement officials, school officials, and members of the community are searching for program evaluators they should look for individuals who are educated, fair minded, or have experience in the matter. The evaluators should consist of law enforcement officials, school officials, social workers, and members of the community. A special staff should exist for the evaluations and have a set of checks and balances within the evaluation process to guarantee a successful D. A. R. E program within the community.
Final Thoughts Ethical reasoning involves learning to identify intellectually, and not interpreting data or facts based on personal agendas (Paul & Elder, 2003). Ethical evaluators conducting evaluations of the D. A. R. E, or any other program assist in, “answering questions, solving problems, resolving issues and adequate analyzing of the program ” (Paul & Elder, 2003). D. A. R. E has kept many individuals from using drugs, alcohol, and participating in gang activity. Successful and ethical evaluations lead to successful programs. Success in D. A. R.
E not only prevents drug and alcohol use but prevents individuals from participating in violent crimes and preteen sex. The teenagers who do not use drugs are less likely to end up pregnant or with an SST. Languages won are addle to Dull trusting relationship Walt law endorsement are more willing to assist in community policing and become better citizens. If the program is inadequately depicted through an evaluation society suffers. D. A. R. E is essential in fighting crime worldwide and proper evaluation methods are necessary to ensure the program continues to be effective. References