Discussion: Program Evaluation: Benefits and Concerns of Stakeholders

I NEED THE INITIAL DISCUSSION AND PEER RESPONSES DONE PLEASE! I MADE IT TWO PAGES SO THAT ONE PAGE CAN BE THE DISCUSSION AND THE SECOND CAN BE ON THE PEER RESPONSES!
THANK YOU!

THERE IS A LINK THAT YOU MAY BENEFIT FROM

https://www.wkkf.org/resource-directory/resources/2017/11/the-step-by-step-guide-to-evaluation–how-to-become-savvy-evaluation-consumers

Dudley (2009) points out that social work practice is usually embedded in programs. While you looked at practice evaluation using single-subject design in Week 3, this week, you shift focus to program evaluation. Program evaluation serves many purposes, including accountability to funders and to the public. Often, funding sources such as government agencies or private foundations requires periodic program evaluations. These evaluations can help provide answers to many different questions, and can contribute to improvement of services. There are a variety of program evaluation models that are appropriate for addressing different questions as well as facilitating the collection and analysis of many different types of data.
To prepare for this Discussion, identify a program within an agency with which you are familiar, which could benefit from process evaluation and outcome evaluation. You do not need to identify the agency in your post. Also, review the different evaluation models highlighted in this week’s resources (needs assessment, program monitoring, client satisfaction study, outcome evaluation, or cost benefit study).
By Day 3 INITIAL DISCUSSION
Post a brief summary of the program that you selected. Recommend a program evaluation model that would answer a question relevant to the program. Explain the potential benefits of the program evaluation that you proposed (both process and outcome). Identify 2–3 concerns that stakeholders might have about your proposed evaluation and how you would address those concerns. Then explain 2–3 concerns that stakeholders may have about your proposed program evaluation and how you would address those concerns.

By Day 5 PEER RESPONSE
Respond to a colleague by doing all of the following:
Identify the stage or stages of the program to which your colleague’s selected question relates.
Suggest an additional question or concern that stakeholders may have about program evaluation.
Recommend an alternative model for the evaluation.

Emmanuel

A brief summary of the program that you selected. Recommend a program evaluation model that would answer a question relevant to the program.
The program that I selected is Syringe Exchange Programs (SEP) are designed to expand access to clean syringes and ensure a safe way to dispose of bio-hazardous materials. SEP’s create safer environments for the community at large as an effective public health intervention for decreasing the transmission rates of HIV and other blood-borne diseases such as Hepatitis C, as well as connect users to treatment and other important needs such as housing and food assistance (NCHRC, n.d.). SEP’s also reduce overdose and opioid-related mortality. According to the CDC (2015), more than half of people who inject drugs reported using a syringe exchange program and their services.

Explain the potential benefits of the program evaluation that you proposed (both process and outcome).

Logan & Royse (2010) report that programs are developed to prevent something from happening. This is true for the SEP program. The program assists people in need of clean syringe exchange and harms reduction education and training as well as provides treatment referrals. To evaluate this program, data must be collected. This can be done through anonymous identification of participants in the program through assessment. Objective data (Logan & Royce, 2010) will be used. This will also be a formal evaluation that systematically examines the data and is applies to research. The questions, “does the program work” and “are the client’s overdosing at a higher or lower rate” and “are the client’s decreasing infectious disease transmission”. In addition, in regards to state-specific comparisons, questions such as “which counties are affected most or utilizing SEP the most”, “are funds distributed equally to those measures”. More questions are “should the program continue as is, what changes need to occur to make it better, or should we terminate the program and use the federal and state funds elsewhere”.

Identify 2–3 concerns that stakeholders might have about your proposed evaluation and how you would address those concerns.
The evaluation will be completed through assessments of participants by workers in the program each time contact is had or made with participants. This will be documented and entered into a database. A data research team through a funded University program with a one-time federal grant of $250,000 with an additional grant from the Public health forum in the amount of $ 100,000, by a research Psychologist (Dr. Bruce). Here we have internal and external evaluator team members with specific duties. We have agency staff assisting with evaluation data collection and research Doctors evaluating the collected data. The resources to collect the data are simple assessment documents, which are entered into the data entry board through the University’s research team (funded by the grant) and read by only the research department, specifically Dr. Bruce on this program and findings/outcomes are evaluated.

Identify 2–3 concerns that stakeholders might have about your proposed evaluation and how you would address those concerns.

Stakeholders may be concerned with how data is collected by agency staff and interpreted by those staff members. However, if the assessment has direct questions with direct answers, no interpretation would be required. What is being collected is basically numbers (of overdoses, of infectious disease rate). What also may be a concern is actual true reporting by participants. Some individuals may not report their recent overdose or feel that they can report someone else’s overdose. To overcome this challenge, it is imperative that workers of the agency educate participants/clients on reporting information truthfully so that the program can continue and continue to be a benefit and resource for them and the community.
Stakeholders may also be concerned with the timing of evaluations. When should evaluations be made and how often are concerns? Due to this specific program’s one-time grant, is it imperative to show that overdose related to opioid use and mortality rates decrease as well as a decrease in the spread of infectious disease. The problem that may arise in continuing evaluations for certain counties or states is that we may hit a wall so to speak. We may initially curve the rates of mortality, but the substance use community (within one state or county) may utilize resources and sustain levels that stay the same rather than incline or decline. We then must evaluate different outcomes that may not be as easily attainable as reports of numbers. For example, utilizing treatment and the effectiveness of treatment.
John Watters from the Urban Health Study, Institute for Health Policy Studies, completed an evaluation almost 20 years ago in San Francisco. Rates of infectious disease drastically decreased but also that it stimulated injection drug use. It would be interesting now to also include an evaluation of what degree SEP stimulated drug use.

References
Logan, T.K., & Royse, D. (2010). Program evaluation studies. In B. Thyer (Ed.). (2nd ed., pp221-240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. (PDF)

Watters, J. (1994). An Evaluation of Needle and Syringe Exchange in San Francisco. Proceedings Workshop on Needle Exchange and Bleach Distribution Programs. Retrieved from ncbi.nlm.gov