Program Evaluation Methods Process Impact Outcome

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, and low-income families (Kriegler and Higgins, 2002).

When it comes to the interventions to help reduce indoor exposures in low income households, the said interventions were inclusive of, but they were not limited to; assessments, provision of subsidies, counseling and referrals, relocation, education, distribution of smoke detectors, repairs and removal of water damaged materials, and provision of pest integrated systems. It would be prudent to note that the program was able to reach low-income families and all the participants were satisfied with the aspects of the project.

However, the activities were not implemented as had been intended owing to barriers present. For instance, resources to educate household members were limited. In addition, some owners lacked resources to standardize their houses. Remediation activities were also not completed owing to lack of landlord interest or resources for improvements. It was also not possible to develop housing policies that would be effective owing to lack of information on the quality of houses. Information was only collected from larger areas - excluding information from neighborhoods and municipalities. Moreover, there was the issue of time constraint by staff workers. To implement changes in the program, Kriegler and Higgins (2002) suggests various interventions. First, the issue of housing policies could be addressed by developing housing guidelines instead of codes through local health departments, expert panels, and national organizations. The said guidelines would expand enforcement, education, and housing quality consultation in health. To ensure that resources are available, national foundations, federal agencies, and local resources could be combined to come up with the said resources.

Impact evaluation is aligned with the objectives of the program and is used to measure or determine the immediate effect of the program (Performance, Risk and Social Science Office, 2017). Effectiveness of the program is measured after the program is completed. For instance, one of my program’s objective was to reduce indoor exposure in low-income households by, amongst other things, changing key behavioral pattern regarding the use of artificial pesticides in homes. The program was able to reduce indoor exposures and families experienced improved safety. To determine whether the program was able to reduce indoor exposures in low income households, resources and expert knowledge of public health agencies would be required.

Assessment was also conducted to determine whether residents were aware of safe indoor environments. The assessments were conducted through quantitative measurement and visual inspection of housing status. Assessment reports would be developed from the special reports that describe the status of such houses. Information in such reports would be beneficial to housing agencies and advocates in improving housing standards in their communities.