1 / 14

Evaluability of Multi-Site Community-Based Service Integration Initiatives

This research paper explores the evaluability of multi-site community-based service integration initiatives, examining process and outcome evaluation questions, intervention domains, and summative findings.

ggates
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluability of Multi-Site Community-Based Service Integration Initiatives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluability of Multi-Site Community-Based Service Integration Initiatives Janet S. Reed, PhD, MHA William R. Holcomb, PhD, MBA Presented at the Canadian Evaluation Society Conference June 3, 2003 Vancouver, BC, Canada

  2. Multi-Site Program • Implemented over the previous 9 years • 21 communities in 24 counties (of 115) • 18 program goals • Public and private stakeholders • 2 previous evaluators • Change in leadership • Three – year evaluation period

  3. Process Evaluation Questions • Documentation of service delivery and citizen participation • Involvement of local residents in planning and development • Responsiveness to the needs of consumers • # of citizens attending community meetings and their roles • # served by type of service, frequency, and demographics • Changes resulting from their activities • Openness of financial dealings (transparency) • Range of resources spent on overhead, direct services, and coordination activities • How have communities leveraged other funding sources to expand local services? • Benefits of program attributed by community leaders • Methods of increasing cooperation among community agencies

  4. Outcome Evaluation Questions • System changes as a result of program activities • Independent impact of : • educational enrichment activities on student academic achievement • literacy programs on student academic achievement • school-linked mental health and counseling programs on discipline • childcare services on family income and workforce participation • Consumer satisfaction with services • Satisfaction of stakeholders with initiative

  5. Multi-Site Evaluation • Process indicators • Outcomes relating to 18 goals • Interventions • Community (Health and employment training and assistance, community libraries, etc.) • School(Educational enrichment, after-school activities, formal tutoring, extracurricular activities, pregnancy and smoking prevention, etc.) • Family (Parenting, counseling, support, etc.) • Individual (Tutoring, counseling, mentoring, behavioral aid, etc.) • Control for demographic variables

  6. Formative v. Summative • Logic model • Fidelity • Target populations • Empirical evidence for interventions • Data collection

  7. Cluster Evaluation • Exploratory • Program driven • Extensive variation • Planned to retrospective evaluation • Role is formative • Model is collaborative

  8. Integrated Intervention Inventory • Structured telephone interview • 101 direct intervention staff • For each intervention • Items • Interventions • Process data • Sustainability of interventions • Indices measured • Data for outcome evaluation

  9. Formative Evaluation Findings • 21 communities • 24 counties • 112 intervention locations • 101 direct intervention staff • 1,141 interventions • 22,343 persons served • For 760 of the interventions (66.6 %), staff knew whom they had served • 474 (41.5%) reported knowing how much people participated • 258 (22.6 %) reported having satisfaction data • 316 (27.7 %) systematically collected outcome data

  10. Top Ten Interventions • Education • Extracurricular Activities • Family Activities • Counseling • Tutoring • Recreation • Prevention • Training • Summer Activities • Reinforcement

  11. Target Populations

  12. Intervention Domains

  13. Summative Findings • Of the 1,141 interventions: • 4 collected academic achievement data for educational enrichment activities; 2 showed positive, significant impact • 3 collected data on academic achievement data for literacy (tutoring) programs; all 3 showed positive, significant impact • 1 collected data on disciplinary actions for those participating in mental health programs, which showed positive, significant impact • None collected data on the impact of childcare on family income and workforce participation

  14. Conclusions • It is important for evaluators to understand the complexity of multi-site programs and to realistically assess the role of a program evaluation for informing decision-makers. • It is critical for policy makers, program planners, and program managers to have clear and consistent expectations of the goals and anticipated impact of programs; to communicate this clearly; and to ensure that processes and outcomes are measured in such a way as to ensure accountability of publicly-funded initiatives. • Finally, “…a higher standard of proof for the value of a collaborative initiative should not be required than for existing mainstream programs or state initiatives.” (Bruner, 1993)

More Related