Program process monitoring: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:46, 26 August 2019

Revision as of 03:13, 22 July 2020

Line 1:

{{short description|Assessment of the process of a program or intervention}}

'''Program process monitoring''' is an assessment of the process of a program or intervention. Process monitoring falls under the overall evaluation of a program. [[Program evaluation]] involves answering questions about a [[social program]] in a systematic way. Examples of social programs include school feeding programs, job training in a community and out-patient services of a community health care facility. Questions about a social program can be asked by program sponsors, developers, [[policymaker]]s and even [[taxpayer]]s who want to determine whether or not a particular program is effective.<ref name="O'Sullivan">O’Sullivan, R. G. (2004). Practicing Evaluation: A Collaborative Approach. London: Sage Publications</ref> More specifically, purposes of social programs include identifying a programs’ strengths and weaknesses, assessing the impact of a program, justifying the need for additional resources and responding to attacks on a program, among others.<ref name="O'Sullivan" />

== Process monitoring ==

Apart from measuring the needs, inputs and outcomes of a program, evaluations also monitor the process of a program.<ref name="O'Sullivan" /> According to <ref name="Rossi">Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W. & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7th ed.) London: Sage Publications</ref>(p.&nbsp;171), program process monitoring “is"is the systematic and continual documentation of [the] key aspects of program performance that assesses whether the program is performing as intended or according to some appropriate standard.”" Therefore, program process monitoring involves a systematic and continuous way of monitoring certain aspects of a program’sprogram's process which would indicate how well the program is performing, if at all. These activities help to facilitate the effective management of the program because continuous [[wikt:assessment|assessment]] allows for regular feedback about the program’sprogram's performance.<ref name="Rossi" />

to

Line 28:

=== Coverage and bias ===

'''Coverage''' refers to the extent to which a program reaches its intended target population whereas '''bias''' is the extent to which subgroups of a target population are reached unequally by a program <ref name="Rossi" />(p.&nbsp;200). The aim of all programs is total coverage but very few social programs ever achieve total coverage, making bias an issue.

Causes of [[bias]] are, among others,:

Line 35:

* [[cream-skimming|creaming]]: selecting most success-prone targets.<ref name="Rossi" />

Some programs can experience overcoverage, whereby the program captures numbers far exceeding the intended [[targetstarget]]s (e.g. feeding schemes). Depending on the nature of the program, overcoverage can be costly and problematic (e.g. social grants). However, most programs fail to achieve high target participation, either because of bias in the way targets are recruited or retained or because potential [[customer|clients]] are unaware of the program, are unable to use it, or reject it.<ref name="Rossi" />(p.&nbsp;185).

=== Measuring and monitoring coverage ===