Extra of the Extra Care Housing Funding Initiative - Case Study Example

The purpose of this evaluation is to check whether the evaluation done on Extra Care Housing Funding Initiative has served its purpose or not. Moreover the main goal or aim of evaluation has been clearly defined along with methods used. Data collection and their proper interpretation have been done to know whether the outcome of evaluation and result concluded from the survey is justified or not. The extra care housing funding initiative aims to provide shelter to older people with all house care, support and independence. All the communal and social facilities will be provided within the housing-scheme. It promotes independent living for older people. The evaluation done on this policy should include a systematic method for gathering, analyzing, and using information about the functionality and all basic know how of the program. Evaluation is always considered to serve as a device to improve program and is always conducted to make programs better (R Darton – 2008). For every new program there are always large number and variety of evaluations for business, whether it is for profit or for social well-being non-profit. It is just the way performance management can be about organization, programs, groups or individuals. The purpose of evolution is to see the inputs and to measure required outputs (FML, 2009). “Evaluation, in the context of management activities, is carefully collecting information about something in order to make necessary decisions about it.”(FML, 2009) The reason behind this evaluation was to answer all basic questions about program strategies, working, and program effectiveness, and the fact that evaluation data can be utilized to make further changing to improve program. There are many other reasons to conduct evaluation, for example; it makes us find out what strategy worked and what didn’t. Also, did the program benefit participants or not? What is the satisfaction level of participants? Does the staff or employee have sufficient skills or are they trained to make available services all the time when they are looked-for? Second reason could be to make people sure that the program being evaluated is worthwhile. Also the program evaluation did by company or independent party makes the organization to do critical self –assessments. By knowing how and for whom the program will become effective and how it will strengthen the basic building blocks of the programs, is one the main reason of doing evaluation (R Darton – 2008). The fundamental aim of this research evaluation is to see how social well being and quality of life has been provided to old people in a self built society of their own type, and to know whether the experiment of encouraging people to join in with more control and ownership over their community lives was successful or not. The aim was to categorize conditions and factors that manipulate feasibility of scheme, cost-effectiveness of different models, to get to know the views, experiences and characteristics of the people who live in the schemes, and the views, experiences and individuality of care and support staff. One of the important aims of people who come into these types of settings is to put a stop to the need to move them back again to their old house due to worsening health or functional ability. The results will be judged against the analyses of a longitudinal follow-up of residents admitted to care homes (R Darton – 2008). Other most important aims of this evaluation include comparison of costs/funds with output (the results and the effects of this housing scheme), to determine if the goals set before launching the projects are achieved, and if the cost and services provided are up to the mark. Furthermore, its aim is to collect confirmation about the process to report new approaches to pr­­­­­­­ovide somewhere to live. Moving towards the methods used in this evaluation, we come to know that the data was collected mainly through questionnaires, and then interviews were conducted to support the collected news about residents. There are many data collection methods used to collect information, which include questionnaires, surveys, checklist, interviews, documentations reviews, observation, focus groups, and case studies. Questionnaire method is used when one has to get a bulk of information in short durations by a large public. Interviews are used when someone wants to fully understand someones impressions or experiences, or to know more about their answers to questionnaires (FML, 2009). Advantages of using questionnaire are that: it can be completed anonymously, it is easy to compare and analyze, it can get bulk of data in a short while, and many samples are already present for help. On the other hand, interviews have many benefits too; we were required in this evaluation for example; in depth and full range of information, to develop relationship with interviewee, and fully understand the point of view of interviewee so that any ambiguity could be cleared at the spot (FML, 2009). Hence, in this evaluation process questionnaires and interviews both are used in support of each other. Documentation review is used when one wants to know about the program and its operations without interrupting the actual program; it is done through review of applications, finances, memos, minutes, etc. Advantages of documentation method are that: one gets comprehensive and historical information; this method does not interrupt program or clients routine in program. This is not the best practice in this situation, as to get to know residents’ point of view directly can only explain their true thinking about the scheme and how they feel about it (FML, 2009). Observation is used to gather exact information about how a program actually runs on the whole; about its processes. Advantages of observation are that one can apt the vent as they occur and can view operations of a program as they are actually occurring (FML, 2009). Focus groups deal in a unique way as they search a topic in deep thorough group discussion, e.g., about reactions to an experience or suggestion, and understanding common queries and complaints, etc. Advantages of using focus group method are that: one can get quick and reliable common impressions, and efficient ways to get much variety and depth of information in very short duration of time. Through this, it is very easy to convey key information of program. Last is case study method, which is used to fully understand or portray clients experiences in a program, and it carries out wide-ranging examination through cross-evaluation of scenarios (FML, 2009). Advantage of using case study is that it fully portrays clients experience in program input, process and results; it is the most powerful way to portray program to outsiders. From all above mentioned methods according to the program which was being evaluated, focus group and case study should be utilized as through them the best picture could be portrayed about client‘s experiences in the program. Both are considered to be the most efficient ways of gathering data. The basic purpose of the report was to show results to outsiders, so the efficient technique was one of the above in the current scenario; not questionnaire as the basic purpose of the report was to show results to outsiders and convince them about best output of the program. Through questionnaire one might not be able to get careful advice and sampling might be needed to obtain results from questionnaire (FML, 2009). By having a look at the outcome, one cannot be sure that the results are biased or not. Evaluation report has mentioned that out of all the clients, they were able to take interviews from 3-4 of them; this does not depict the majority of the clients. Also the conclusion shows early results of program only; the survey should have been split into parts and taken into parts after few months or a year so that there could be a comparison of surveys with a passage of time. Because time can change clients’ point of views, plus, it is not necessary that one likes the scheme and living standard in the first six months and continue to like it for the rest of their life. The staff performance should be checked time to time. Initially in every scheme or program, staff is so enthusiastic but with the passage of time all the enthusiasm converts to hectic routine work. In this evaluation, outcome is described and measured in terms of facilities, staff, and market/shops provided, and the availability for everything, not in terms of satisfaction of clients. One or two dialogues about satisfaction would not be considered valid and appropriate; there should be group discussions and some other way to describe if clients are happy with the program. This program’s main goal was to provide old people a shelter like home with all care and satisfaction but there were people from age group ranging 45-50, who are not actually considered to be old nowadays. Even if they are there, the main focus of evaluation should be derived from people above 55-age group because they are considered to be old and need extra care (R Darton – 2008). The pitfalls of this evaluation are that there were many less interviews according to the number of people present in the study. There could have been many ways to save time by taking group interviews and group discussions. Also, the interviews mentioned all success stories; it is not possible that this program didn’t have any flaw. If a failure story was mentioned, it could have helped in learning about program by understanding its failures. The result cannot be concluded by such a short survey; it will take years to know whether the program was successful or not (childtrend, 2007).­ In this evaluation there is no comparison showed, there should be a series of comparisons with different data sources and best alternatives should be mentioned over all. The evaluation should include the communal activities and sufficient staff time and resources to support social activities that are not only essential at the start of the scheme, but also over time as some residents become frailer. Extra care program’s goals should be clarified to forthcoming residents, predominantly when the purpose is to support diverse groups of older people, in which some need high care and support, while some need to give confidence to local people to use the program’s facilities. The evaluation proposes that extra care housing may make possible social well-being for older people, but the relationship between features of the extra care environment, residents’ individual characteristics and social well-being is clearly complex. Even though the findings indicate that the extra care setting smoothes the progress of social well-being, the evaluation is based on comparisons between schemes and not between specific sub-groups of residents within schemes. Multilevel analysis, taking account of variations within and between programs simultaneously, would provide a more comprehensive picture of program as a whole, since evaluation aims to provide all information by fair survey to the outsiders or forth coming clients. Over all the evaluation is covering all major points but the method of getting information should be over looked to make it more reliable and efficient. Plus there should be a yearly comparison to check improvements and number of clients’ increment to calculate success rate of extra care housing program. References: Free management library (2009): “Basic guide to Program evaluation” (viewed 7th October, 2010), from: http://managementhelp.org/evaluatn/fnl_eval.htm PSSRU (2009): “Publications” (viewed 7th October, 2010), From: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/p058.pdf Atlantic Philanthropies (2007): “Research to results” (viewed 7th October, 2010), from: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/p058.pdf Joseph Foundation (2009): “Developing social well-being in new extra care housing” (viewed 7th October, 2010), from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/care-and-well-being-summary.pdf CPA (2010): “Extra care housing” (viewed 7th October, 2010), from: http://www.cpa.org.uk/information/readings/extracare_housing.pdf R Darton (2008) “Extra care housing” (viewed 7th October, 2010), from: www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/rs047.pdf PSSRU (2006): “EVALUATION OF EXTRA CARE HOUSING INITIATIVE” (viewed 7th October, 2010), from: http://www.pssru.ac.uk/pdf/p058.pdf Authenticity Consulting (2010): “Field Guide to Nonprofit Program Design, Marketing and Evaluation” (viewed 7th October, 2010), from: http://www.authenticityconsulting.com/pubs/PG_gdes/PG_pubs.htm Read More