Program Evaluation
Program evaluation is one component of a complex of factors that help to assure successful and sustained implementation of human service programs and practices. Staff evaluation is designed to assess the implementation and outcomes of the skills that are reflected in the selection criteria, are taught in training, and reinforced and expanded in consultation and coaching processes. These are sometimes called practitioner fidelity assessments as well. Program evaluation (e.g., quality improvement information, organizational fidelity measures) assesses key aspects of the overall performance of the organization to help assure continuing implementation of the key components over time. Some program evaluation measures are used as organization-level fidelity measures as well. Facilitative administration provides leadership and makes use of a range of data inputs to inform decision making, support the overall processes, and keep them organized and focused on the desired clinical outcomes. Finally, systems interventions are strategies to ensure the availability of the financial, organizational, and human resources required to support the work of the practitioners.
Evaluation and Fidelity
The most effective intervention will not produce positive effects if it is not implemented. Thus, assessments of performance are a critical component of implementation.
Context fidelity measures describe the necessary precursors to high-level performance (e.g., completion of training, acceptable practitioner-coach ratio, acceptable caseload, availability of colleagues with special skills, availability of certain resources) for a particular program or practice.
Compliance fidelity measures provide an outline of the core intervention components and their use by the practitioner.
Competence fidelity measures are essential for determining the extent to which the core intervention components were delivered with skill and attention to the craft when interacting with consumers.
The results of fidelity measures and staff evaluations seem to have many practical uses. Coaches can use the information to sharpen their professional development agendas with practitioners. Administrators can use the information to assess the quality of training and coaching. Purveyors can use the information as a guide for implementation at the practice and program development levels. And, researchers can use the information as an outcome measure for some studies and as an independent variable in others.
