EVALUATING A PROGRAM
Evaluating a Program
To start with, it would be prudent to note that evaluation is important to any program given that the effectiveness of the said program can be sufficiently established (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n. d). In addition, the said program could be improved after an evaluation. There are three types of program evaluation, i.e. process, impact, and outcome evaluation. According to Performance, Risk, and Social Science Office (2017), describing the said types of evaluation happens to be useful in establishing whether the program meets the needs of the targeted population. In this text, I will discuss the three types of evaluation that could be used in my health promotion program.
Process evaluations determines how a program is operating and how it would be implemented (Performance, Risk and Social Science Office, 2017). For instance, in a logic model, process evaluations addresses outputs, activities, and inputs. Essentially, they are used in the early stages of a program whereby more efficient processes for the program are identified. In addition, process evaluations are useful when assessing the effectiveness of attaining output goals (Performance, Risk and Social Science Office, 2017). The author further suggests that process evaluations tend to focus on the services provided, the target group, resources used, encountered problems, and how to solve such problems. For instance, in my program for health promotion, there were various key stakeholders who were included in the program, i.e. government agencies that regulate housing, community housing advocates, housing organizations, community development corporations, architects and home owners, urban planners, landlords and tenants, homeless families,...
by assessing the outcomes and impact of the said program. With regard to our health promotion program, it would be prudent to note that the conditions,
behavior, attitudes, and knowledge of low income families had changed at the end of the program. Evidence from public health advocates revealed that families that relocated to better
living conditions, from substandard houses, enjoyed better outcomes in health (Kriegler and Higgins, 2002). The authors further suggest that low-income families who moved from infested apartments, single and deteriorated rooms into senior, well-designed and new apartments had improved health status and reported low mortalities 8 years after relocation. In addition, the said families had fewer outpatient medical visits that those who stayed in substandard housing. Further, the authors suggest that asthmatic patients who moved to more ventilated households had improved medication use,
symptoms,…
