Program Evaluation of of Westchester Arc

User Rating: 0 / 5

Details

Hits: 7359

Program evaluations are designed to take into considerations the different aspects of assessment. It is a systematic process designed and executed to assess the processes and the outcomes, and at times only the results of a program in order to propose changes to the program or establish if the program is meeting its intended objectives.The concept of evaluation attracts different methodologies and includes various aspects of a program and it is upon the evaluators to dig into the methods, techniques and design to identify which suits best their needs or if a combination is preferred (Harris, 2010).Conducting evaluation even at minimal is essential to guiding a project to the right direction or in determining if the project met its objectives, if any adjustments are necessary for future or if the program can be implemented for another time.

It is possible that an evaluation of a program can generate irrelevant or impractical information, more so in the event that an external evaluation consultant is brought in. At such point, it is upon the organization to identify what is relevant and practical to the program and easily understood. Most importantly, it is critical to carry out the evaluation in a more practical and realistic manner, and the results are presented in a way that is understandable (Joham, Metcalfe & Sastrowardoyo, 2009). A program can be viewed as mutually exclusive or non-mutually exclusive to conceptualize program expectations. This evaluation mentions conceptualizations of the program discussing their significant implications for the facility and the programs. The evaluation should exploit sound methods for evaluating the program to conceptualize best project expectations (Joham, Metcalfe & Sastrowardoyo, 2009).

Use of quantitative and qualitative data is an essential part of an evaluation, and the critical elements of the program that do not yield quantifiable information by their nature must be considered (DEARDEN, 2010). Several features of assessment are available for project expectations with their negatives and positives explored in this evaluation of the facility. The missions and goals of the institution seek through to accomplish the purposes with the goals often becoming part of programs of an organization. Commonly, programs are organized to provide interrelated services to the constituents and the common aim of providing services to their constituents, and evaluation will always decide on whether the programs are useful for their intended purpose or not. Collecting information about a program or/and its aspects and methodologically analyzing such data to come up with tangible observations and recommendations aid in the decision-making process about a program (DEARDEN, 2010).

Program evaluation includes a variety of different types of evaluation, from needs assessment, cost benefits analysis, effectiveness and efficiency, formative, summative, goal-based and outcome assessment. Choice of evaluation assessment to undertake depends on the intended purpose of that process and the desired results from it, and therefore focus should much be on what is needed to be known to aid in the proper running and execution of a program (Royse & Royse, 2001). Programs are designed and executed as interventions to achieve individual results for communities they are implemented. It is, therefore, important to establish if such activities or interventions work, their effectiveness and how they can be improved to achieve the desired results. It also helps identify which projects and programs can work best where they are implemented and those that can be performed elsewhere and be effective.

Evaluation Methodology

            This evaluation will capture qualitative and quantitative data in their primary form in order to conceptualize best the program expectations. The evaluation will entail examining resources in the facility, interview with the project staff, county and state administrators (DEARDEN, 2010). There is observation of procedures at the Arc service, interview with the responsible persons of the development disability organization, surveys of other service features and documents analysis. The evaluation will go further in analyzing the satisfaction of clients to the services, establishing how the services meet the needs and the expectations of the people. The focus will be based on the effects of the budget cuts and their impact on service delivery in the facilities and analysis of the provider efficiency in terms of the clients efficiently seen on a regular basis and the rate of follow up and revisits by the clients. It is necessary to establish whether the resources are better utilized in the event of a budget cut or not (Gettings, 2009).

            Among the factors, the evaluation process was based, and different tools were used to obtain the necessary data, from observations, surveys, and questionnaires. Determination of the desired results from the evaluation guided the process and the development of necessary tools and processes to obtain data (DEARDEN, 2010). The program outcomes and activities were adequately documented as per the expectations before the execution of the evaluation process. What the program expects to achieve, how expectations are achieved and the measure of the progress of program are essential aspects to be considered in the evaluation process. It is important to demonstrate to stakeholders that the programs are working, and implementation as well as the effectiveness of the programs be improved. Evaluation will help inform better management of limited resources, establish program achievement and justify that the resources and finances availed are properly used. In the same event, the evaluation will help explain the need to adjust resources and demonstrate effects of the program to clients.

Conceptualization of Program Expectation

            The program expectation of the facility is providing better services to those with developmental disability irrespective of any other factor. The rolling out of home-based facilities is the best opportunity to serve better clients with disability and connect with the community needs than the institutionalized services. A closer look at the program expectations enables to establish what the outcomes to expect from the service system and the affirmation that the delivery structure in place will produce the expected outcome (Harris, 2010). The evaluation will be conducted for a period of one year, which is the previous year of operation to establish the outcomes and the impacts of the budget cut on service delivery in the facility (Gettings, 2009). The principal aim of the evaluation is on whether the program has met its desired outcomes within the period of the transition from the institution based on systems structure.

            The expense of the home based care delivery structure and its success is a determinant for increased funding and continued implementation of such systems all over for the provision of disability services. With the design and implementation of residential care facilities, it can be determined if the structure offer the best services than the previous. The Arc is the largest agency in the country it exists in serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The facility has enough employees to provide the large number of clients with a range of interventions and services designed to foster the wellbeing of the people and the community (Arc of Westchester, 2015). It seeks to empower the people with developmental disabilities to achieve their potential, strengthening their families and sparking individual’s abilities. It also focuses on ensuring that the clients fulfill their lives and achieve the full potential and inspired future.

            Therefore, the expectation of the service delivery of the facility is to people having a fulfilled life and inspired future, and to foster the wellbeing of people with developmental disabilities and the community they live in. The facility handles over 2000 clients and in the process links up with the families of the respective clients to empower them to achieving their potential. The service with its focus on the community most probably embraces the residential care structure to the institutionalized due to its interests and mission (Arc of Westchester, 2015). The evaluation does not focus on the all along operation of the facility but focuses on its services with the residential care system and in the plight of budget reduction by the governments.

            The facility itself came up when people from the community with children who had developmental disability were exploring means by which their children would find better help. The group went ahead to purchase housing and establish a school in the place that currently serves over 2000 children with developmental disabilities in New York. Therefore, the expectation can also be the effort of the people in Hawthorne to take control of the school and  ensure better service provision for the children from within the county. It can be viewed as a community effort in realizing the solution to their problems and serving their needs in the manner, they want (Arc of Westchester, 2015). Therefore, the project expectation that the evaluation can take on is the effort of the community to ensuring proper services are provided to the children with developmental disabilities and the government restructuring of the care system to residential.

              There are elements of the program views that best conceptualize the program since the expectations are not mutually exclusive. On this matter, the expectation of the program is the government enforcement of the residential-based care facilities with the focus on both the disabled and the community empowerment and the community involvement in the process. The fact that government recommend residential care facilities while at the same time cutting costs on the developmental disability services is unusual (Harris, 2009). Establishing the criteria that the services deserve funding or if the budget cut from time to time is justifiable is another factor to consider. It can be clearly demonstrated that the communities can take positive initiatives on matters that are of concern to them and effect positive change even with the government inefficiencies.

Impacts of the Elements of Westchester Facility

            It is important to present data that will probably demonstrate the effect of the activities of the facility for its intended purpose. Demonstrating effectiveness and incorporation of government residential facility recommendation to the institution in ensuring service provision focusing on the community. Quantitative data presented here relates to the effectiveness of the service delivery that gives the number of people attended to and the number of staffs (DEARDEN, 2010). It will also compare the expenditure, budget, allocation and deficits to justify the need to cut costs or adjust them upwards to meet the needs of the people and to ensure that the intended purpose is achieved.Mostly, the effectiveness of incorporating the residential facility system and the effectiveness of meeting the desired outcomes is established. On the other hand, the ability to offer services to the clients in the catchment area and the availability of the necessary resources and funding to meet the needs is also established. A comparison can be made with the institutional based care systems and the efforts of the community to supporting the services of the facility put in a limelight.

Cut of services in New York State

            As it can be seen in the table above, the state has reduced services of all other four services but not the services for the elderly and the disabled. This means that the disability services and the services to the elderly are of importance to the state, and they take an active role in them. Reduction in services in specific areas can be as a result of minimal demand or lack of evidence of the need for the service in the area (Kelley, 2009). This may lead to longer waiting list for services and more costly services for the patients.

Comparison of budget cut and allocations

The tables below show the extent to which the service charges are reduced and the extent to which allocations are released. As seen in the figures, the healthcare has the highest reduction of costs with all the approved allocations being released.

From the figures above, we can see that there are factors that dictate the allocation of funds for services other than the needs and the availability of funds. Overall, the government commitment to disability care services is evident for the year 2015. The allocation, is over $130 million less the previous year and what the next financial year holds for the facilities cannot be predicted.

Changes in expenditure and the number of people served

            The table below shows the amount of change in the expenditure and the change in the number of people served in developmental disabilities. It can be seen that there is an adverse change in spending with a positive change in the number of people served. A cut in funding subjects facilities to lower their spending in order to meet the needs of the clients in a better way (Kelley, 2009). The increase in the number of clients served indicates that even with the cut in funds and expenditure, the facilities can still handle more people with the available resources.

Figure One. Prevalence of developmental disability

          The table below shows the projections of the prevalence of developmental disabilities in types in the state. Compared to the general population, the rate of the number of people with developmental disability is beyond a tenth of the general population of the state. This could give a reason the County of Westchester and the state of New York concentrates on the health and disability services. Even with the budget cuts, the state do not cut off the services and personnel in the sector, and as evident, the facility has employed a full number of employees to work in the institution to respond to the needs of the persons with disability (Kelley, 2009).

Conclusion

            The data summarized in the tables above together with other  findings lead to drawing a conclusion on this program. The program expectation of the Arc was to improve the wellbeing of those people with developmental disability and the general community and to provide residential care facilities across all ages within the county (Arc of Westchester, 2015). This initiative and the expansion of the scope have enabled the service to attend to several individuals with a developmental disability using different integrated interventions and various services.

            By the fact that the number of people with developmental disability in the population is large, the facility has designed programs and services that best suit different needs while at the same time offering respective services to the people.With the cut in funding and the increase in the number of people who access the services provided by the facility, the need for larger staff to respond to the needs of the disabled, the plant successfully identified other sources of funding to supplement the government allocations and service charges (Kelley, 2009). The program expectations related to providing equal care to the persons with developmental disabilities is balanced by the provision of care professionals who meet the needs of the people and the sourcing of funds to meet financial needs. The state is committed to service provision in the area of health and disability services and does not cut the services even upon the budget cuts. Several factors contribute to the decision to cut on the budgetary allocation of the services other than the service provisions and the needs of the people (Kelley, 2009).

Possible Future of the Program

            The possible future expectation of the project could be achieved by expanding the residential based facilities to the community to help manage the condition. Some people within the community, families and relatives of those with developmental disabilities can be trained in handling the patients and in managing their situations to recovery (Harris, 2009). The plans should be institutionalized and structured to ensure the program maintain its distinct feature and serves its intended purpose. The institution can also incorporate the government recommendations and admit their clients to the state medical waivers to get the subsidies settled.

            The next possibility is that the agency explores means of generating funds for its services, or justifies the need for more funding to the current funders (WojciechMacek, 2011). Having the most effective and efficient way to service delivery may just be other means of ensuring proper utilization of available resources and the justification of the need for more funding. It is important that the program receives sufficient funding in order to run its services effectively to achieve the aim of empowering the disabled and their communities to achieve actualization. It is evaluator’s opinion that the facility source for funds and minimize wastage to ensure it remains operational.

• Prev
• Next