Program Evaluation

Program Evaluation

Many objectives in diverse fields are always attained by launching specifically designed programs that are targetted at precise outcomes. However, the success of programs squarely rests upon their correct implementation and regular evaluation. Evaluation fundamentally enables the program teams to gauge whether a program is still on track or not (Guyadeen & Seasons, 2016). By gaining such knowledge, it becomes possible to make necessary adjustments that aid in the attainment of the intended goals. Thus, program evaluation is a central resource in the management and assessment of programs launched for specific purposes. Evaluation not only brings out the strengths and weaknesses of a particular program but also points out the picture of the implemented plans (Guyadeen & Seasons, 2016). In this paper, a discussion of how two program evaluation approaches – logical framework approach and CIPP model – can be utilized in the assessment of healthcare programs is presented. Herein, the government has introduced programs for the eradication of jiggers, typhoid, and malaria in three sub-counties in Shauri Yako county. The discussion is centered on the evaluation of one of these programs.

Logical Framework Approach

The Logical framework approach, also called Logframe, is a highly effective strategic planning and project management methodology with full application. Precisely, the approach is a valuable resource for water management and sanitation programs mainly because the resource base of water has widely diverse and competing applications (Myrick, 2013). Logframe comprises an integrated package of tools that are used in the analysis and solution of the planning problem. Also, the tools are essential in the design and management of such programs (Myrick, 2013). The ultimate product of this analysis is the log frame matrix, which summarizes the intention of the project, the process of attaining the goals, the main assumptions of the project, and the process of monitoring and evaluating the outputs and results of the project.

Applied in healthcare projects, the log frame matrix generated provides a ground for the program team to summarize the goals of the project, the means adopted to achieve the goals, the possible assumptions and hypotheses made in the design of the project, and the outcomes and results of the program (Myrick, 2013). In doing so, this method of program evaluation allows for the understanding of the relationship that exists between the program objectives, the implementation process, and the results. In the present case, the program’s goal is to eradicate jiggers, typhoid, and malaria in the mentioned county. To attain the purpose of the program, there is a need that the program implementation team employes specific measures such as sanitation of the environment and provision of pit latrines for typhoid, mosquito control, treatment of active cases and provision of mosquito nets for malaria, and comprehensive treatment for jiggers. In addition to all these approaches, there is a constant need for public health education on the need to adhere to the instructions given, to improve personal hygiene, and to support the measures taken. In the end, specific indices have to be measured. These may include the prevalence and incidence of the diseases at hand, the evaluation of the spread rate, the number of new infections reported, and the burden of the conditions among the at-risk population. All these are only doable through the use of log-frame matrices.

This approach is generally efficient evaluation approach. The main advantages of the logframe matrix approach are its ability to test ideas and concepts in terms of relevance and usefulness, its ability to guide systematic and logical analysis of interrelated elements, and its capacity to define linkages between the project and external factors (Myrick, 2013). Also, during implementation, the log-frame serves as the primary reference for drawing up detailed work plans, terms of reference, and budgets; and provides indicators against which the project progress and achievements can be assessed (Myrick, 2013). On the contrary, the approach fails in some aspects. The main disadvantages are that the intense focus on results can miss the opportunity to define and improve processes, and limited attention to problems of uncertainty where a learning or adaptive approach to project design and management is needed.

CIPP Model

The CIPP model is another highly useful evaluation tool that is commonly used today in the evaluation of programs and projects in diverse fields of application. CIPP is an acronym that stands for Contact, Input, Process, and Product (Aziz, Mahmood & Rehman, 2018). Thus, it can basically be defined as an evaluation approach that bases on context, inputs, processes, and products as the common ground for judging the value of a program. It is a decision-based approach that stresses the systematic provision of information for the management and running of the program in question. The main goal in CIPP is the provision of analytic and rational grounds for decision making based on the planning, structuring, implementing and reviewing, and revising cycles (Aziz, Mahmood & Rehman, 2018). All these are examined based on the four main components of the approach – context, input, process, and product. Thus, the methodology makes the evaluation relevant to the needs of the project team through the different phases of the project.

When applied in the evaluation of healthcare programs, the CIPP model is a precious resource that aids, in addition to understanding the progress of the project, in noting the key factors to consider in decision making. The four components primarily answer four basic questions (Aziz, Mahmood & Rehman, 2018). The element of context states what should be done by looking at the needs, goals, priorities, and objectives. The component of inputs basically tells of how the thing is to be done (Aziz, Mahmood & Rehman, 2018). The elements of process and product show of whether the program is being done as it should be done, and whether or not the activities are working.

Simply, programs aimed at eradicating diseases require the implementation of clear goals and well-designed activities if the objective is to be obtained. The needs, goals, and priorities must always be defined first. Here, the requirements or preferences are vector control for malaria, environmental and personal hygiene for typhoid, and flea control for jiggers. These are the ting s that need to be done. These can be done through diverse methods. For instance, chemicals, mosquito nets, and environmental engineering can be used to mosquito control, handwashing, and use of toilets in typhoid, and use of chemicals for jiggers. At this point, the project implementation team needs only to take care of the correct implementation of the strategies adopted in the project. If all these are done excellently well, satisfactory results will be obtained.

The CIPP model holds many advantages. Firstly, it was not designed with any specific plans in mind and can be applied in a wide variety of evaluation cases. Also, it is a comprehensive approach to evaluation that can be used from program planning to program outcomes and fulfillment of core values (Aziz, Mahmood & Rehman, 2018). The CIPP model is well established and has wide applicability. On the flip, the limitations include blurring the line between evaluation and other investigative processes such as needs assessment and limited application in performance improvement fields.

References

Aziz, S., Mahmood, M., & Rehman, Z. (2018). Implementation of the CIPP Model for Quality Evaluation at School Level: A Case Study. Journal Of Education And Educational Development, 5(1), 189. doi: 10.22555/joeed.v5i1.1553

Guyadeen, D., & Seasons, M. (2016). Evaluation Theory and Practice: Comparing Program Evaluation and Evaluation in Planning. Journal Of Planning Education And Research, 38(1), 98-110. doi: 10.1177/0739456×16675930

Myrick, D. (2013). A Logical Framework for Monitoring and Evaluation: A Pragmatic Approach to M&E. Mediterranean Journal Of Social Sciences. doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n14p423