1.

How does program monitoring (reading 1 and 2) fit into the schematic diagram of the function of program evaluation given in figure? 1. 1 Monitoring and evaluation of a large-scale community-based program: Recommendations for overcoming barriers to structured implementation fitted into the schematic diagram of the function of Program evaluation. This reading provided an outline of a Home Visiting Program (HVT) and its aim includes: a) integrate home visiting into existing antenatal and postnatal services, b) contribute to improving the integration and coordination of antenatal and postnatal services in the region and c) provide a home visiting service by nurses and volunteers that enhances the infants growth and (physical, emotional, social and cognitive) development and support the wellbeing of the parents and other family members. On the other hand, this program is under monitoring and evaluation. The aim is to employ a systematic and objective method for describing and reviewing the program structure, including staffing and referral arrangement; program implementation; information on program participants; intervention range-the focus and nature of the interventions undertaken with clients during home visits ; short term impact; and selected client outcomes. In the planning phase of the program, the local community needs are initially identified. In this paper, health services and resources are the needs. The government made an initiative to access disadvantaged families in the community through funding the HVP. There are also other professional groups (team of community health nurses, public health researches) that helped in the monitoring and evaluation of the program. The target special group of this program includes the disadvantaged families outside current service networks and improve linkages between services in a socially and economically deprived urban area of New South Wales, Australia. The program was specifically designed to assist at risk pregnant women, parents and their families. In this paper, ongoing evaluation of the program was observed from the planning part to the results of the service. In each part of the process, it was made sure that the program has been implemented as planned. 1.2 The Program Evaluation and Monitoring System: A Key Source of Data for Monitoring Evidence Based HIV Prevention Program Processes and Outcomes, fits the program

monitoring the schematic diagram in the sense that it is continuous evaluation and that it is holistic in nature. Local community needs which is HIV prevention or reduction of cases of HIV, the governmental agencies which is the CDC Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP), Professional groups like doctors and nurses, and special interest groups will now form a plan to reduce or prevent HIV cases which will then become an HIV Prevention Program that will be funded by the CDC DHAP. Based from the program, there will be a Program Evaluation and Monitoring System of the HIV Prevention Program. This Program Monitoring will evaluate the effectiveness of the program implemented and will determine future plans as how to proceed because evaluation is ongoing throughout the process of HIV Prevention Program. It will also provide feedbacks of the strengths and weaknesses of the HIV Prevention Program. Basically the Program evaluation will be the check and balance of the entire operation to check for every aspect of the HIV Prevention Program.

2. Develop an information system for each of the programs monitored in Reading 1 and 2 based a.) relevant information b.) actual state of the program c.) program participants d.) providers of services. Reading 1 a.)Relevant Information Interventions rendered by the HVP nurses. Quality and outcome of home visiting services provided by the HVP nurses. Variables such as breastfeeding rates and duration, childhood immunisation rates, social support, mothers psychological well-being, knowledge and use of community services, and smoking rates. b.) Actual state of the program The eligibility criteria and referral pathways for admission into the HVP were not clearly defined. The program expanded beyond its target population, accepting clients who required professional expertise not offered by the program and consequently the evaluation reflected an

inaccurate level of program inadequacy. The level of need and complexity of issues experienced by families were much greater than HVP staff anticipated, despite previous experience in the locality. The program was under-resourced for the degree of need experienced by its clients. The role of the team and the activities they undertook continued to evolve in response to the observed and expressed needs of their clients. Variation between, and sometimes within, individual staffs recording of activities decreased inter-rater reliability and reduced data consistency. The action research model adopted required that the evaluation, especially the data forms, be periodically amended in response to the operation of the program. Some HVP staff did not accept the responsibility of completing the data forms, citing clients needs as a more urgent task. The introduction and compulsory use of a new information system (CHIME) for all community health facilities within the organization. Follow-up of very mobile clients who have a transient lifestyle. The true effectiveness of the program was diffi cult to assess; longterm outcomes could not be measured. Organisations or groups inappropriately withdrew support to a family when the HVT became involved. c.) Program Participants There were 118 clients (families within the communities which were outside current service networks.) These comprises at risk pregnant women, parents and there family members.

d.) Providers of services A team of community health nurses, part-time nurses and volunteers.

Reading 2 a. Relevant Information: The CDC has undertaken major efforts to ensure that its funded HIV prevention programs are effective in preventing the spread of HIV. CDC strategies to improve HIV prevention efforts include reducing barriers to HIV testing; strengthening prevention efforts and linkages to medical treatment and care for HIV infected persons; delivering targeted,

evidencebased HIV prevention interventions to atrisk populations; and improving organizational capacity to monitor and evaluate prevention programs. Such strategies have been incorporated into program guidance and cooperative agreements between the CDC and health departments and communitybased organizations funded to deliver or support HIV prevention programs. The CDC has identified, developed, and endorsed HIV prevention programs that have demonstrated evidence of effectiveness either through research projects, demonstration projects, or research reviews and syntheses. These include the CDCdeveloped guidelines for HIV counseling, testing, and referral and for partner counseling and referral services (CDC, 1998, 2001), the Compendium of HIV Prevention Interventions with Evidence of Effectiveness for Populations at High Risk (CDC, 1999, revised 2001) findings from systematic reviews (Lyles, Kay, Crepaz, Herbst, Passin, Kim et al., in press), the Procedural Guidance for Selected Strategies and Interventions for CommunityBased Organizations Funded under Program Announcement 04064 (CDC, 2003b), and the intervention kits produced by the Replicating Effective Programs (REP; Sogolow, Kay, Doll, Neumann, et al., 2000) project and disseminated and supported by the Diffusion of Effective Behavioral Interventions (DEBI) project (CDC, 2004a). b. Actual State of the Program: Before the development of the Program Evaluation and Monitoring System (PEMS), grantees performance in HIV prevention was limited by the lack of a standardized set of HIV prevention variables and adequate data collection systems for managing and reporting such data. With no standardized data collection system in place, data reported to the CDC were often incomplete, of questionable quality, and not comparable across agencies or program areas. PEMS is a national data reporting system developed to strengthen the capacity to monitor and evaluate CDC-funded HIV prevention programs administered by the Division of HIV AIDS Prevention (DHAP). c. Program Participants: Grantees of CDC-funded HIV prevention programs administered by the Division of HIV and Aids Prevention from across the US

d. Provider of the Service: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP)

3. Explain how monitoring relates to formative and summative evaluations. Monitoring programs is a means of evaluating programs. There are two types of evaluation in terms of instructional design and these are formative and summative evaluation. A formative evaluation (sometimes referred to as internal) is a method for judging the worth of a program while the program activities are forming (in progress). This part of the evaluation focuses on the process. A summative evaluation (sometimes referred to as external) is a method of judging the worth of a program at the end of the program activities (summation). The focus is on the outcome. Monitoring is the crucial aspect or program evaluation whether it is formative evaluation or summative evaluation for it is essential to keep track of activities. In evaluation using program monitoring it includes the assessment of the resources devoted to the program and whether this effort is directed as planned. You can monitor through formative which means the focus of monitoring is on the process and it can be done before or during a projects implementation with the aim of improving the projects design and performance. In order to know whether or not you are on track to achieving your programs objectives, you must monitor the project during implementation as well as evaluate its impact at the end of the project. Monitoring the progress of the project allows you to adapt the program as needed to ensure that you attain your objectives.