Hi, thank you for taking on this assignment. Please reach out to me if you have any questions, and I will get back to you as soon as possible. I had someone on PapersOwl originally due this assignment but my professor said that it looks like there was a ?constructive struggle evident. ?You didn?t report on an actual inferential test, though.? Make sure this reflects a serious attempt to fulfill all the directions (requirements) listed in the directions.
Is there anyway you can remake the graphs too listed in the file so everything like the data could correlate and match your statements?
Directions: Data collection is the only thing in the nonprofit evaluation world that cannot be rushed. Everything else usually is, especially writing tasks. One way to speed up the work is to distribute it among the entire staff. Please analyze the data columns in Excel labeled: College Readiness (follow up) -Mentor Consistent -My mentor helps me challenge myself to succeed I am able to look to my mentor for guidance My mentor helps me to spend more time and put more effort into my learning I?m able to discuss problems with my mentor; I discuss my future with mentor -My mentor helps me feel good about myself -Positive mentor relationship (follow-up) Use that data to write one mini-report of a single analysis with the idea that it can be synthesized into a single, larger web page or white paper. You will use that data to write about whether positive mentor relationships mediates the relationship between mentor consistency and increase in college readiness. Below is attached an excel file with the information to help you analyze those categories.
Directions: The Ream (2016) paper is an example of ?quantitative advocacy? for students who were misidentified as suicidal because they were depressed and then stigmatized for being suicidal. The suicidology field tends to accept the possibility of a few ?false positives? in suicide screening if it results in people getting the help they need. However, these students were bewildered and traumatized by their interactions with professionals and paraprofessionals, and this created barriers between them and treatment. When the paper came out, one of the people in charge of the Interactive Screening Protocol (ISP) asked the journal to publish a letter clarifying the scope of the investigation. There is no indication that the paper harmed ISP at all, but it did succeed in getting a message through to high levels within the suicidology field about potential problems with false positives in wide-net screening. On the discussion board, answer the following questions briefly, in 2-4 sentences (5 points each). How might disseminating results from a program like our mentoring program serve as quantitative advocacy for the youth of Hempstead? One statistic to focus on is that our youth with inconsistent mentors had potential-to-graduate rates that were about the same as published graduation rates for Hempstead High School, but rates for youth with consistent mentors were much higher. Is there an agency or population that you know of that might benefit from quantitative advocacy, i.e., getting the real story about them out there? What correction do you think should be made to the narrative about them? If you were to create a project around the idea you just mentioned, what data would you download and/or collect? What hypothesis would you test? What result would confirm your idea?
