Emergency and Crisis Management Program
In the continuous process and effort of trying to improve the service program to human, the funders, service providers, and the policymakers are with great number increasingly acknowledging the benefits of rigorous evaluations of programs. Their main aim is to know and realize the accomplishment of the program, the cost of the program, ...and they can be operated to achieve the maximum cost-effectiveness. Very determined to know which program fits which group and based on the conclusion extracted from the specific findings rather than impersonate pleas and testimonials.
This paper enumerates and lays out, the programs basic principles evaluating the design, for the no technicians. It gives signs of the pitfall or loopholes to the possible future failures, identifying constraints and challenges that should be considered presenting the ideas that can be used to solve potential problems and threats. These principles are very general and universally applicable to a dynamic range of human program (Manuj & Mentzer, 2016). This paper will illustrate the applications with different examples of both the vulnerable children and youths. The evaluation of the programs is in particular very complex because they into details address the full range of multiple and diverse problems with possible solutions, it is also determined by clients and numerous agencies with changes in time to be able to meet the service requirements and needs.
Step one is to select the appropriate evaluation design. Step number one that involves the selection of evaluation design is also constituted with the clarification of questions that usually needs to be attended to and answered (Vogel & O'Brien, 2016). These are immediately followed by another step that is about developing a logic model that puts in place causal linkage that is expected between the program goal and the program can as well be referred as the program components. Step three is to view the schedule and accessing whether it is ready for evaluation. For proper understanding, the paper will explain each into details, describing how to select and chose the design that is the best for a specific purpose from the major types of evaluations that are currently in existence.
Clarify the evaluation questions.
It becomes the common question; it must always begin with the definition of the audience for the specific findings, precisely what they need to know and what is the stipulated time. This question will finally determine which among the following major types should be considered and used.
The evaluation of the impact, it is a type will specifically focus on the questions that are related with causalities. Whether the program achieved its intended goal and purpose, if it did achieve, then another question becomes, what characteristics and the activities that made the impact? Whether the program had any unintended dangers or consequences either positive or negative it has to be put at a point that has minimal dangers to the people.
Monitoring the performance, these are to help provide information on how the system and the program work at different phases and levels, defining the objectives and the attainability of each level. For instance, the number of children served in comparison to the set target goals, the reduction of children/youth dropout from school in comparison with the desired target. These results are very vital since they are used by the funders, service providers and the policy makes with the intention of analyzing the quality efficiency in accomplishment and performance.
Process evaluation answer, this poses the question of how the program operates documenting the activities and the procedures that are used during the delivery of service. This kind of evaluation is very imperative in helping to identify the problems that are usually faced during the process of service delivery giving better strategies and the possible solution that can be utilized to overcome the challenge and difficulty. They are of great benefit to the service provider and the practitioners in adapting and replicating the program strategies.
Cost evaluation, it is the process that is used by specialist in determining the cost required in conducting a successful emergency mission. Evaluation is done on all activities and the best alternative picked for the function. The program selected is aimed at supporting all the activities and process put in place. It is at this point that the chosen program has to ensure that it fits in the selected budget.
The provision of the preliminary evaluation to the staff with the purpose of improving the operation of the programs and the additional developing services is an issue that should be faced and solved. The preliminary results are very consequential in identifying operational problems providing the evaluation procedure to evaluate their production standard monitoring the entire activities with the intention of improving the service. Evaluation finding is usually used by the evaluators who face main and significant problems, many difficult challenges that are always brought about by the impact of the evolving intervention (Bhatt, Roe, Peterson, Chen, Harrington and Gibson, 2014). When the program keeps on changing, measuring of the impact also requires an ongoing measurement that is of the same level as that of the service providers. The main danger in the formative evaluation is the line that exists between assessment and the program operation which will be blurred. Extra resources and efforts required in the formative evaluation have to directly gauge the potential benefits from the proceeding improvements.
Developing logical model
It is challenging to interpret and evaluate findings with less knowledge of the program goal, the links between program benefits and sequence of implementation. The expectations of the relations between program components are made explicit by the development of logic models. This kind and types of models are made possible and available by engaging the service providers in a discussion, this discussion and consultations must as well involve the funders who together as a team review the process of service delivery, this will exhibit transparency between the players of the program components. It is usually illustrated and explained in the literature review that helps identify the plausible casual links and any other program which is very important and should be considered during the evaluation process.
The logic model requires the simple explanation of the program, intended output, and extended outcomes. Characteristic of the program includes the estimated population that is to be reached, resources that can be used and how to identify the levels and the types of service elements. Outputs are the programmed product from the inside/internal activities of the program. Program outputs can be, the vehicles that can be used to produce the desired program outcome, for instance, decrease in the number of childhood illness, the decrease in neglect and the abuse cases, or employment increase in the youth. Much attention should be accorded especially when the anticipated outcome is very much expected with much certainties. Because of that, it is usually essential to group the outcome into two, intermediaries and the long-term one this can be called dropout prevention and can be utilized to evade any impending danger that is uncertain (Pelletier, 2015). Much attention must be focused in the outcome to analyze how the result was arrived at, and if it was negative, how can it be solved, if it was positive how can it be maintained and improved.
The primary failure is selecting an outcome expected to surface during the set time frame of the prevention program. The evaluation results state that at the end of the test, there was no prevention of the use of the drug that was significant. It was very imperative for the anticipation of the results, primarily after it was detected that drug use does not begin at among youth until the mid-teens year.
Assessing readiness for evaluation
Evaluability assessment can be explained as the systematic procedure that is used for deciding if the program evaluation is feasible, justified and can depend on to give exact and useful information. It is important for future response; it helps evade dangers when they appear with immediate effects.
Bhatt, D. L., Roe, M. T., Peterson, E. D., Li, Y., Chen, A. Y., Harrington, R. A., ... & Gibson, C. M. (2014). Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. Jama, 292(17), 2096-2104.
Manuj, I., &Mentzer, J. T. (2016). Global supply chain risk management strategies. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 38(3), 192-223.
Pelletier, K. R. (2015). A review and analysis of the clinical and cost-effectiveness studies of comprehensive health promotion and disease management programs at the worksite: update VI 2000–2004. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 47(10), 1051-1058.
Vogel, C., & O'Brien, K. (2016). Who can eat information? Examining the effectiveness of seasonal climate forecasts and regional climate-risk management strategies. Climate Research, 33(1), 111-122.
Why Content Is Hidden
This content is completely free and no charges are applied, but it's
only supported for our users.
If you want this content, Please create an account or login
Create a new Accouont