Meta House’s Recovery and Health (R&H) Program

Meta House’s Recovery and Health (R&H) Program

Discussion

The program evaluation report critiqued is “Recovery and Health” (R&H) Program by Meta House. The program was formed to support to treat women who are into substance abuse and their families (Larson & Malcol, 2012). The evaluation got funding from the Center for Substance Abuse between 2007 and 2012. The Planning Council conducted the evaluation exercise for Health and Human Services.

The design elements that make the evaluation report easy to understand is the methodology which incorporates the development of survey items, sampling procedures, data collection and data analysis. The design was well-drafted it helps provide a clear rationale for evaluation (Fitzpatrick, Sanders & Worthen, 2011). The design plan was based on the evaluation items developed through an interview. The design also helps one understand the information. That is because a reader can tell how conclusions were drawn and the information that was used.

The stakeholders the report addresses include the financiers, the local government of Wisconsin and vulnerable population. That is discovered by looking at who the report was prepared for and the objectives of the evaluation. The report was prepared from the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) (Larson & Malcol, 2012). The report addressed the key stakeholders.

Further, the evaluation report does communicate in a sound manner how to design and implement it. It highlighted the areas of treatment where the patients experienced challenges during treatment, and that needs continuous improvement. The findings of the evaluation have been presented according to each item of evaluation (Posavac, 2011). However, the program did not address any issue related to cost. It only focused on the effectiveness of the program’s interventions. The important questions not addressed include the cost of improving the methods, the involvement of other partners and the need to invest in employee training programs. Finally, the report concluded by presenting the findings on each item and the recommendations to improve on each challenge.

References

Fitzpatrick, J. L., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program evaluation: Alternative approaches and practical guidelines (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Larson, L. & Malcol, E. (2012). Meta House’s “Recovery and Health” program. Final program    evaluation report.  Planning Council for Health and Human Services, Inc.

Posavac, E. J. (2011). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (8th ed.). Boston, MA:          Pearson, Prentice-Hall.