Life without Barrier - Assignment Example

EVALUATION PLAN s Introduction The number of people with disability disorder in the world and especially in Australia has been increasing drastically over years. For instance, based on Australian Bureau of Statistics 2003 report, more than 20% of Australian population have long term disability complications (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2011, par. 4). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistic, disability is the restriction, impairment, and any limitation that is likely to last for more than six months. As per the Australian Bureau of Statistic, more than 40% of the Australian population have different forms of disability complications (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2011, par. 4). To counter the short-term and long term impacts of physical and mental disability in Australia, several non-governmental organisation and programs have been instituted to holistically deal with the threat. Life without Barrier is one of the organisations that address disability complications in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2004, par 7). The essay below therefore seeks to evaluate the structural arrangement, operation and function of Life without Barrier program Evaluation, scope and purpose The main purpose of Life without Barrier is to provide essential services to people with disability in Australia. The organisation is specifically aimed at offering accommodation and other essential services to people with mental disabilities and especially Borderline Personality Disorders. Patients who are catered for in this program use shared accommodation. To effectively implement the program, the organisation has recruited considerable number staffs to facilitate 24 hours service delivery. The organisation is also funded by the Australian central government through the Department of Families and Communities (DFC) and Disability South Australia Department. To ensure superlative results in its programs, the Life without Barrier uses Behavioural Therapy Program which has over years proved to be very effective in healing Borderline Personality Disorder. To enhance the culture of competence among the Life without Barrier employees, the program is assessed and evaluated by the University Of South Australia. The evaluation process by University of South Australia also aims at ensuring that, the targeted population get the maximum benefit from the program. In addition, the University of Australia also uses the pre-test-post-test method in their evaluation process. The evaluation plan also aims at assessing the level of customers’ satisfaction in service delivery as well as the level cultural sensitivity and cultural appropriateness in service delivery. Evaluation of stakeholders and team members By considering the fact that Australia is a multicultural country and the Australia citizens power and mandate of democratically electing the government, the Life without Barrier is expected to consistently consider cultural competency in their service delivery. Since the organisation is funded by almost all departments in the government, the organisation is as well expected to demonstrate political consideration. Accountability and transparency is therefore a very vital facet in the organisation’s responsibility. The program is as a result considering using outsiders in the evaluation process. The external evaluators are expected to play a very essential role in identifying and describing pre-program and post program satisfaction level among the program beneficiaries. External evaluators are as well expected to examine the program and staffs based on cultural correctness. Since the external evaluators are not at any level linked to the organisation politics and finances, they are as a result likely to provide unbiased and new perspective in the organisation’s program. However, despite the expected prosperity, the external evaluators may be faced with a problem of missing the required and adequate knowledge in the field of disability. Project indicators and logistics Effective evaluation mechanism is incredibly essential in understanding the level of cultural competency among the organisation’s employees. The core aim of the evaluation programs is purely to assess the organisations employees’ ability to offer culturally suitable services to their clients (Kettner, Moroney & Martin 2008, p. 91). By considering the core purpose of the program, the Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) is one of the most appropriate methods of examining Life without Barrier competence in service delivery. Purpose The core aim of the organisation is offer culturally appropriate services to its clients. The organisations employees are as a result expected to examine their assumptions, attitudes, values, and beliefs on cultural diversity and their impact to their clients. Moreover, the program employees are also expected to understand and appreciate the impacts of age, gender, and class to different cultures. Goal The main goals of the program is to assess the short term, immediate, and long term impacts of cultural oriented training program to the organisation employees and their clients. Outputs The output of the program will be examined by evaluating the number of clients who demonstrated satisfaction to the services offered by the organisation employees Activities The program initial activity will be to adequately train the organisation’s employees. This will be followed to comprehensive employment of the trained skills and competency. The final activity will be to examine the immediate, intermediate, and long term impacts of the training the program by undertaking a comprehensive data collection and systematic evaluation. Method The entire evaluation process is expected to take 12 weeks. The time frame will depend on the nature of work required in collecting accurate data from several participants. The evaluation time is as well based on the available funding and the competence and the number of the evaluation team. To collect accurate and relevant data, the evaluation program intends to use two data collection and evaluation mechanisms, the interview and the survey (DePoy & Gilson 2003, p. 67). The interview process is expected to directly seek responses from the organisation’s clients and employees. The interview will specifically be directed towards answering the following questions Are there changes in service delivery? Are the services culturally tailored towards meeting individuals’ needs (if so how and if not why not)? Do the employees understand the importance of factors such as gender, age and class in their service delivery (if so why if not why not)? Both survey method and interview method are expected to provide qualitative data. The program also intends to conduct an intensive interview to acquire detailed information and facts. The interview will be based on on-one-one interview and telephone interviews. The interviewing process will as well incorporate clients who do not use the Life without Barrier services. The response will be documented in an orderly manner for effective comparison. The program intends to document the survey findings without disclosing the name of the participants. The data that will be collected by survey method will be used to examine clients’ satisfaction and evaluate the emerging issues in the organisation’s service delivery. The two methods are expected to facilitate easy and quick access to huge information from numerous respondents. Moreover, the anonymity in the survey method is as well expected increase free and comfortable respondents participation (ABS, Disability, 2009, p. 67). The implementers will as well ensure minimum biases in the entire process of collecting and evaluating the collected data. Survey questions In scale of 1-10 where 10 is a reflection of total satisfaction and 1 is a reflection of dissatisfaction, where do you rate the organisation service delivery in terms of cultural satisfaction and competence Is there any change in the organisation service delivery? Is the organisation service delivery culturally tailored to fulfil the client’s needs? Sampling and recruitment The recruitment process will be conducted by updating in advance the respondents who will be presumed to have the required qualifications. Only the willing and competent participants will be allowed to participate in the evaluation process. After accepting to participate in the evaluation process, the participants will also be informed about their rights and privileges. The program will as well rely on cluster sampling in identifying the respondent. Evaluation Issues The evaluators in this case will rely on the guidelines that define the Social Workers practice and ethics (Rioux 1998, p. 123). In Australian, social workers are guided by The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) Code of Ethic 2010, and Australian Evaluation Society (AES). The two guidelines are all aimed at encouraging better and quality service delivery (Turner 2003, p. 57). However, despite clear guidelines that explains the role and responsibilities of social workers, evaluators many encounter several issues and challenges. Any attempt by the program funders or administrators to tamper with the program operation may raise severe ethical issues. Therefore it is essential for the implementers to ensure the program is objective and independent (Johnson, Hillier, Harrison and Frawley, 2001, p. 67). The differences between the organisation and the clients may as well bring about conflict and confusion due to their conflicting interest and expectations. In most cases, evaluators are more concerned with the organisation’s goal as opposed to the interest of other parties. The organisation politic is as well likely to interfere with the entire evaluation process (Winkler, Farnworth, Sloan Stringer & Callaway 2011, p. 89). As expounded in Australian Evaluation Society and Australian Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, evaluators should demonstrate maximum respects, dignity, privacy and rights of everyone. It is the responsibility of evaluators to ensure that, the conclusion of their findings is based on the available facts. Failure to comply with the set requirement will therefore severely interfere with the entire evaluation process. Participants should as well be informed on the objective of the program and their role and rights in the entire evaluation exercise (Australian Evaluation Society 2010, p. 91). To avoid unnecessary confusion, evaluators should as well ensure that, the participants understand their confidentiality rights by signing the consent form. The participants should also be informed about their right to choose to either participate in the process or decline to participate. Participants rights to withdrawal their participation should as well be unconditionally respected. It is also important for implementers to understand the most effective means of appreciating the respondents’ contributions and participation in the evaluation process. References ABS, Disability, 2009, “Ageing and Carers”, Australia: Summary of Findings. Australian Evaluation Society 2010, “AES Guidelines for the Ethical conduct of Evaluations”, Melbuorne: AES Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2004, “Children with disabilities in Australia, AIHW”, Retrieved on 23rd November 2012, from: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2011,”Young Australians: Their health and wellbeing 2011, AIHW”, Retrieved on 23rd November 2012. From, DePoy, E & Gilson, SF 2003, “Evaluation Practice: Thinking and Action Principles for Social Work Practice”, Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole, Johnson, K., Hillier, L., Harrison,L. & Frawley, P. 2001, “Living safer sexual lives: Final report”, Melbourne: La Trobe University,. Kettner, PM, Moroney, R & Martin, LL 2008, “Designing and Managing Programs: An Effectiveness-Based Approach”, 3rd ed, London: Sage Publication. Rioux M 1998, “Enabling the wellbeing of persons with disabilities” Toronto: Roeher Institute, Turner, D 2003, “Evaluation Ethics and Quality Results of a Survey of Australasian Evaluation Society Members”, AES Ethics Committee, retrieved on 23th November 2012. From: http://www.aes.asn.au/about/Documents%20survey_summary.pdfhttpwww.aes.asn.a / Winkler, D., Farnworth, L., Sloan,S., Stringer, K., & Callaway, L. 2011,”Young people in nursing homes: White paper”, Melbourne :Summer Foundation Ltd and Monash University Read More