Assignment 2

      The program that will be evaluated is the prenatal exercise class that was put in place in order to help reduce the incidents of type 2 diabetes as well as gestational diabetes. This Saskatoon – based program focused on pregnant Aboriginal women who have traditionally experienced high rates of diabetes. A complete evaluation of this program would require a longitudinal summative study after a decade or longer so the long-term results of the program can confirm or refute it's success.

      However, in order to properly evaluate this program, I would begin with a modified CIPP model. Due to the relative newness of the program, this formative assessment would focus on the Inputs and the Process. At this point, context could be ignored as, for now, it is a lower priority than Inputs and Process. At a future date, evaluation of the people who volunteered (or neglected to volunteer) would provide valuable information as to how to better serve the focus group (including the 93% of eligible candidates who did not participate). But, for now, it is more important to evaluate if the inputs and process are helping the people who are currently involved.

      The Product is not a priority right now either. First of all, the program is too new to accurately measure whether or not participants are experiencing fewer cases of diabetes and, if so, if this program was the cause of the decrease. As it said in our readings on the CIPP model, “one should not redundantly gather new information if acceptable and sufficient information from another source is readily available.” One could assume that there already exists sufficient proof that exercise, in fact, lowers the risk of diabetes so attempting to re-prove that in this small sample is not an efficient use of resources.

      At this point, the evaluation should focus on the issue of discovering if the Inputs and Process are being used as the initial plan had intended. Sample questions that need to be asked are:

• What made the participants choose to participate?
• Do participants find the program too easy/too strenuous?
• Do participants regularly attend?
• Are all the sub-programs being utilized (child-care, busing, pool membership, books, etc,)?
• Why did/didn't participants invite friends?
• Was once a week enough?
• Did participants use the pool on non-class days?

      Questions such as these will lead evaluators to how they can better serve those who are attending. This will also lead to modifications that will attract more candidates. Mid-range evaluations will include Context as researchers can begin to examine the demographics of those who participate. While initial data show that half were housewives, half were single, two-thirds were social assistance, etc., it does not indicate why these numbers are the way they are. Do they represent a cross-section of Aboriginal women? Do these women join for health reasons? Social reasons? Are people who join a program like this the type of people that would have exercised anyway so the program – while providing a means for these women – would not, overall, lower the incidence of diabetes? For those who were eligible, but chose not to participate, why did they not participate? What would it have taken to take advantage of the program? These are all valid questions that will need to be addressed as the program begins to mature – perhaps in three to five years.

      As far as Product, occurrence of gestational diabetes could be determined fairly quickly but type 2 diabetes may take years to surface. The outcomes for the program as a whole could not be sufficiently evaluated until enough time had passed to make conclusive statements. Also, it would take time to differentiate between the intensity, frequency, and duration of participating women and the results they achieved.

      One evaluating method that would not be beneficial at this point is the discrepancy model. It is too early to dissect each aspect of the program to determine if the results from that particular event are contributing to the overall success of the program. Again, in five or 10 years, it would be helpful to do this, but for now, it would be nearly impossible to separate the effectiveness of each component of the program.

       One model that would be helpful along side of the CIPP model is the countenance model. Since data at this point may be skewed or difficult to come by, qualitative assessment of the participants, staff, and other stakeholders would provide valuable information into the Process of the program.

Conclusion:

      When analyzing a program, especially one as new as this, the temptation to over-analyze must be resisted. In time, a full CIPP evaluation (or Scriven model examining goals and roles) will be appropriate and valuable but, for now, the more urgent and important components of the program that need to be evaluated are just the Inputs and Process. Obviously it would be crucial to emphasize to the overseers of the program the importance of ongoing evaluation as the program matures and to use the formative evaluations to slowly impact the context of the program. As stated earlier, assuming the that exercise has already been linked to the reduction of diabetes, this program can clearly be invaluable to many high-risk women if it is managed properly. 

Joel