Program Evaluation -- Things Happen

Program Evaluation -- Things Happen

Systematic Inquiry

The principle of systematic inquiry becomes obvious even before the evaluator took on the responsibility of surveying the program and its effects. Respecting this principle was a complex task due to the existence of a previous study and the need to review the direction and results of the already taken survey. It even constituted a reason that could have determined me not to take on the task. However, once I did, I was forced to properly conduct my own survey. Otherwise put, the work I was hired to perform and the existence of a previous study forced me to integrate the two sets of data into a single integrant set of findings. In order to achieve this desiderate while also following the principles of systematic inquiry, I decided to add some additional questions to the initial survey. The measure ensured that I would be able to consider the two types of information, increase the efficiency of the survey and come up with a unified conclusion.

Another instance that proves the following of the mentioned principle revolves around the numerous situations in which I engaged in open conversations with the staff members in order to form a clear and unbiased opinion. The conversations carried on for six months and were aimed to retrieve multifaceted arguments and opinions.

2. Competence

In terms of competence, the evaluator possessed sufficient skills and capabilities to handle the task at hand. Additionally, I enjoyed the experience of previous evaluation tasks, which helped me in the process of data collection. Additionally, I have decided to interview as many individuals as possible. In the previous section, this decision was explained through the desire to ensure the respectability of the systematic inquiry principle. However, at this stage, the interview of numerous stakeholders has also served the purpose of revealing high levels of competence on the part of the evaluator. It was as such necessary to engage in open conversations with more individuals in order to become acquainted with the multiple sides of the same story. This then ensured me with the ability to form an independent opinion, based on the more sides heard as well as the direct observations made within the working environment.

The objective of all these endeavors was to create an unbiased and objective conclusion. While the evaluator's competences were revealed at numerous stages of the evaluation process, the formation of the ultimate result was impeded by personal judgments and fears. This might lead to two conflicting conclusions. On the one hand, it could mean that the evaluator is biased and insufficiently capable to make an objective opinion. On the other hand, it could mean that the evaluator has not forgotten that the tasks he evaluates are about people and that realization could be in the overall benefit of the entire program.

3. Integrity/Honesty

The evaluator was honest and integrant at all stages of the evaluation processes. I commenced by clearly stating by reasons for the reluctance in taking on the evaluation, but in the end agreed that the job could still be done. Additionally, I engaged in open communications with various staff members and revealed compassion, understanding and most importantly, honesty at all stages of the conversation. The reason behind this integrant behavior is a twofold one, on the one hand being the actual nature of the evaluator and on the other hand being the requirement imposed by the job and the benefits such a behavior could generate. Otherwise put, honesty and integrity in the behavior of the evaluator generate honesty and integrity in the behavior of the interviewed persons, through the power of example. Despite these efforts however, the staff members at the support program chose to not disclose valuable pieces of information to the evaluator. This changed the entire course of the program, which could have been improved had the evaluator been told about the robbery incident, and placed the evaluator is an ethical dilemma.

Integrity was revealed in other instances as well, such as the communication of the means to be used in retrieving the necessary information. An instance that could cast a shadow of doubt upon the ultimate integrity of the evaluator is represented by the end of the support program, at which time the evaluator is uncertain on what his report should state.

4. Respect for People

The evaluation process was conducted with the utmost respect for all those involved, from the nurses interviewed to the staff members in charge of the support program. The evaluator was not intrusive and did not intent to pry on the certain aspects that the respondents preferred to leave unanswered. Despite the respect of this principle however, the overall evaluation program was harmed as some support staff took advantage of it and left out some vital pieces of information. The most relevant example in this sense was the incident during which a nurse was held at gunpoint and robbed during a house call to an elderly citizen in a low income area of the city. The evaluator was informed of the incident, but was also assured that it was resolved and that it would not generate any outcomes for the support program or the evaluation process. The evaluator took this information on faith and out of respect for the staff, he believed it and went on with his activities. However, as it later on turned out, the incident was much more serious than initially believed and efforts supported by the evaluator to addresses the issue sooner could have been pivotal to a more efficient support program.

5. Welfare

The principle of general and public welfare was a salient motif in the evaluation process. In other words, the evaluator has always been aware that his efforts must also reflect the impact of the support program onto the nurses, but also onto the entire society. The actual emphasis on this feature was however reduced up to the time the support program was in fact completed. By this moment in time, sufficient information had been collected and the evaluator came across some vital pieces of data that would reveal conflicting stands. The robbery incident is also the key element in this discussion as it represents a threat upon the social well-being. Without being able to come in possession of sufficient data regarding the robbery at the time it occurred, the evaluator's emphasis on general and public welfare was reduced -- this implies the failure to respect the welfare principle due to a lack of access to information. But now, it becomes greater with the emergence of the new data. This status quo throws the evaluator in a dilemma as he is unsure of the actual impact the robbery has had.

Additionally, the principle of welfare also forces the evaluator to consider the long-term impacts of both programs, as well as robbery and similar acts of violence against nurses or any given citizen. He is doing it at this stage, but previous interest was reduced. Then, there is also the matter of a balance between client needs and the needs of other categories of stakeholders. The evaluator believed he respected the principle, but in light of the new information, it may seem that the balance is uneven. All these add up to his current problem.