Public Health Program Evaluation Best Practices within the Canadian Federal Government
INTRODUCTION
Objective
To critically appraise the Public Health Agency of Canada’s eight program evaluation reports for their strengths and weaknesses – program evaluation planning, design and implementation, data collection and analysis, and reporting – for informing public health practice within the context of the Canadian federal government.
Agata Stankiewicz, MPH¹, Ron Wall, PhD²
¹ Master of Public Health Program, Lakehead University ² Public Health Agency of Canada
RESULTS
Assessment of Public Health Program Evaluations
Evaluation methodology
Criteria Poor Adequate (N) (N) More N/A than (N) adequate (N)
RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS
Improving evaluation reporting
Outline key evaluation questions in the main body of report, not in a separate companion document as otherwise the reader has to flip back and forth between documents; Provide a matrix of evaluation question, issues, and corresponding indicators for clarity purposes; Provide key details of the methodology; Provide the methodology section after the introduction, otherwise the reader will have to keep on guessing throughout the report what the applied methods were; Provide a description of limitations and trade-offs, and suggestions on addressing the limitations; Include a ‘lessons learned’ section, where applicable, as it helps guide and optimize future public health program evaluations; Provide a formal recommendations section in the report - providing scattered recommendations throughout the results section of the report is not considered sufficient; Ensure that conclusions are clearly outlined and precede recommendations – combining conclusions and recommendations in one paragraph is not advised; Ensure recommendations flow logically from findings and conclusions and make sure that recommendations address the significant evaluation findings and conclusions; Propose recommendations that are practical and realizable; Provide in the recommendations the potential impact of a proposed recommendation on the program evaluated.
Background
Program evaluation practices within the Canadian federal government: Program evaluation findings are reported in evaluation reports as part of Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBS) funding requirements and are key information used to ensure accountability for planned results (TBS, 2004a). In February 2001, the TBS approved the Evaluation Policy (2001), including defining the scope of evaluation to include programs, policies and initiatives and positioning the discipline of evaluation as a core competence for resultsbased management (TBS, 2004a). Program evaluation practices within public health: Over the last decade, as a result of conversions in the public health sector, public health program evaluation guidelines, frameworks and toolkits have been developed in order to ensure that programs will remain accountable and committed to achieving measurable public health outcomes.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY Describes the methodologies and design applied to the evaluation The evaluation issues and questions are adequately addressed Multiple Lines of Evidence: The evaluation relies on more than one line of evidence to support its findings (triangulation of results) All stakeholder perspectives are included Evaluation Limitations: Limitations are described: actual and potential biases, reliability of data are identified and explained in relation to their impact on stated findings The constraints of the evaluation are made clear
Description of the Methodology/ Design: 1 0 3 3 4 4 0 1
0 0
2 3
6 5
0 0
0
3
5
0
Rationale
1.
A detailed assessment of 115 Canadian federal government evaluation reports found that almost one quarter were found to be inadequate in terms of their quality (TBS, 2004b).
0
2
5
1
Evaluation findings
Criteria Poor (N) Adequate (N) More N/A than (N) adequate (N)
Improving evaluation methodologies & results analysis
Create evaluation questions that cover all issues/ requirements as recommended by the TBS Evaluation Policy (2001) and public health program evaluation guidelines; Include a representative sample of key informants; Include a group of participants that do not have a stake in the program as they will be a source of unbiased information and will contribute to a well-rounded perspective of the program; Ensure that the evaluation relies on more than one source of evidence and that it uses a combination of both quantitative and qualitative approaches; Minimize bias and data reliability issues as much as possible; Ensure that rigour is introduced into the evaluation.
2. A literature review of public health program evaluation guidelines demonstrated that none of these guidelines, frameworks or toolkits address public health program evaluation within the Canadian federal government. Therefore, this program evaluation report review analyzed in light of a) the TBS Evaluation Policy (2001) and b) public health program evaluation guidelines will facilitate conducting effective public health program evaluations in the Canadian federal government.
METHODOLOGY
Methods Diagram
I. Literature review - evaluation report analysis in light of:
i. TBS Evaluation Policy (2001) ii. Public Health program evaluation guidelines, frameworks and toolkits
II. Evaluation Report Review: Program Evaluation Reports 8 public health program evaluation reports obtained from: Centre for Excellence in Evaluation and Program Design, Public Health Agency of Canada Evaluation Report Assessment: a) Review Template i. Modified version of template found in “Review of Quality of Evaluations Across Departments & Agencies” (TBS, 2004b) ii. Quantitative and qualitative assessment b) Evaluation Report Sections Analyzed i. Evaluation methodology ii. Evaluation findings iii. Conclusions & recommendations
EVALUATION FINDINGS Evidence of Relevance: Evidence to demonstrate actual need and/ or evidence to demonstrate responsiveness to need Evidence to demonstrate continued relevance to government priorities/ needs Evidence to demonstrate that it does not duplicate or work at cross purposes with other programs, policies, or initiatives Success: Clearly describes what has happened as a result of the program and articulates attribution of program, policy or initiative to success Cost-effectiveness: Identifies the extent to which the program, policy or initiative could have been delivered by more appropriate, cost-effective methods to achieve its objectives - evidence supported by both qualitative and quantitative methods
0
2
2
4
0
0
4
4
0
1
2
5
Program evaluation report analysis findings will result in:
reporting higher quality program evaluations when requesting renewal of a program’s terms and conditions (TBS, 2004c);
0
1
7
0
advancing credible evidence-base evaluation results supporting decision-making processes relating to a program’s future (TBS, 2004c); clearer and more logical program plans leading to optimal use of public health resources (CDC, 1999).
2
0
2
4
Evaluations’ conclusions & recommendations
Criteria Poor Adequate (N) (N) More N/A than (N) adequate (N)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Centre for Excellence in Evaluation & Program Design, Public Health Agency of Canada, Nancy Porteous, Alison Jetté, Judy Lifshitz
REFERENCES
Centre for Disease Prevention & Control (1999). Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 48, No. RR-11, 1-40. Retrieved June 28, 2008 from: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr4811.pdf Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2004a). Evaluation Function within the Government of Canada. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/pubs/func-fonc/func-fonc_e.asp Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2004b). Review of the Quality of Evaluation Across Departments and Agencies. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from: http://www.tbssct.gc.ca/eval/pubs/rev-exam_e.asp Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (2004c). Guide for the Review of Evaluation Reports. Retrieved June 30, 2008 from: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/eval/tools_outils/4001752_e.asp
Quantitative assessment • Four rating criteria: Poor Adequate More than adequate N/A
CONCLUSIONS Conclusions objectively answer the evaluation issues and are supported by the findings RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations are operational, practical and realistically attainable Recommendations address significant evaluation findings Recommendations flow logically from findings and conclusions
0
0
5
3
0 1 1
2 0 5
6 7 1
0 0 1