Assignment #2

Assignment #2 – Choosing a model to evaluate a given program

The program – a brief description:

                       

The program to be evaluated involved the development of a fitness program for pregnant Aboriginal women in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, from March of 1995 to March of 1997. The intent of the program was to foster healthy pregnancies (short term goal) and reduce type 2 diabetes rates within the offspring of the participants (longer term goal).  

The model I would use for evaluation of this program:

Stufflebeam’s CIPP model of evaluating a program seems to be an appropriate  model to use for this evaluation.  Of course, given that this program has been terminated, I will continue under an assumption that an evaluation of the program (as it was) may have the effect of prompting the “restarting” of the program, with recommendations for improvement, of course (why evaluate otherwise?)!

The CIPP model would allow for a fairly systematic and thorough approach to looking at each of the stages (planning, creating structure, implementation/monitoring, and outcomes) of the program. It would be useful in presenting relevant recommendations for improvement or change at each of the formative stages. Presumably, research could determine how successful the "first go-around" of the program was in meeting the goal (summative) of reducing diabetes rates in the offspring of the women who had been participants.

When establishing the CONTEXT, I would also be sure to involve the input of many stakeholders (both past participants if possible, and present members of the contributing or effected community including elders, pregnant women, medical professionals, etc.).  Also, I would ensure that the program objectives were explicitly outlined and made clear to all stakeholders. With collaboration and questionnaires at the planning stage, perhaps other important objectives would also be brought to light.

When examining the INPUT, I would definitely want to look back at the program as it had been implemented. While exercise was the focus or approach that was initially thought would produce the desired outcomes, it seems that there were other factors that were added as the program developed, such as education opportunities, social support groups, and provision of nutritious snacks. These factors should be considered as fundamental contributors to the success of the program as well.

Much like the Input phase, the PROCESS or implantation should be carefully examined. Again, the program seemed to change and be dynamic in nature (as was directed by the needs and wants of the group). While flexibility and change within a program can be very necessary and positive, it is also import to try to foresee implementation challenges, and address them early on, so as to make planning and facilitation as smooth a s possible.

Assessing the outcome (PRODUCT) should definitely take into account some of those shorter term objectives (healthy pregnancy) and longer term objectives that were considered to be an imperative need for starting the program in the first place.

Some additional random rambles as I think about models of program evaluation:

Although Stufflebeam’s CIPP model was named as the main model for this evaluation, I also recognize that I have a natural affinity towards Scriven’s “goal free” approach, or at least a modified version. While I believe setting goals and clearly outlining objectives is important, I would be concerned that some programs are terminated in a “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” type of manner.   Evaluations can become so focused that those unanticipated side benefits are discounted, or not given the merit deserved.

Also, Rippey’s Transactional model holds appeal for me in its collaborative nature, where all stakeholders are involved in determining issues, objectives, and actions to be taken.