Program of the Access to Human Services for Sexual Minorities - Term Paper Example

Program Evaluation Plan Program Context The aim of the program was to improve the access to human services for Lesbians, Gays, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) individuals. In this case, Lesbians and Gays referred to individuals who were sexually attracted to those of the same gender, Bisexuals referred to those individuals who were born sexually fascinated to female or male, while the transgender consisted of individuals who were born with defects in their gender and sometimes undertook surgical operations in order to specify their genders. The program was initiated after realization that the LGTB were socially marginalized and this hindered their access to human services (Dworkin & Yi, 2003). A research contacted before the program confirmed that LGTB individuals faced disparities related to health due to barriers caused by stigma from the society, the denial of human rights and discrimination. Further, their access to public health was hindered by the lack of specific insurance systems that targeted them. In addition, geographical locations brought differences in access to public health with those in urban centers more likely to access health care as compared to those living in rural areas. The result of this marginalization of LGBT individuals was that they were more prone to Psychiatric disorders, homophobia, transphobia and substance abuse. Mission The mission of this program was to increase access to human services for LGBT individuals through specialized healthcare provision and reduction of societal stigma. Objectives To create specialized treatment that targeted the LGBT individuals To increase the number of individuals who deal and assist individuals in the LGBT group. To provide adequate security so as to ensure safety for the LGBT group in the society. To create awareness on how the public should relate and understand individuals in the LGBT group. To increase funding and the number of facilities used by the LGBT group. Target Population The program generally targeted the LGBT group and in specific those individuals in the group who need access to health services or had encountered a stigma either in the society or in public institutions. Environment As Dworkin and Yi (2003) observe, the program implementation was initiated in an environment of conflict in the political arena relating to LGBT group issues. The government however succeeded in legalizing gay and Lesbian marriages in a heavily contested congress process. However, the implementation of the policy has not been easy due to stigma that the society has towards gay marriages. It seems that this policy publicized the issues creating more issues and divisions related to the LGBT group. Specifically, religious groups were opposed to this move by the government considering such marriages as cursed and against the principles of Christianity (Gates & Newport, 2012). As a result, given that a wide percentage of the population is Christians, the conflict gave rise to more issues of stigma against the LGBT individuals especially in Christian and other public institutions. Purpose of the Evaluation Consequently, this evaluation report aims at identifying the progress that has been achieved so far in terms of implementing the specific intervention programs identified. Moreover, it tries to evaluate how the intervention programs have achieved the intended objectives in order to note areas of success and those of failure. In addition, the evaluation needs to consider how the outcomes of the intervention programs, especially those already implemented have performed with regard to achieving the specific outcomes they were intended for. Furthermore, the purpose of the interventions and the overall program is to achieve the set outcomes and hence if the program has not addressed the problems should be revised either in the process of administration or in the approach of the problem (Norway, 1989). Lastly, an evaluation is necessary so that the challenges encountered or hindrances to program implementation and achievement of desired outcomes are identified. Expected Outcomes Short Term Outcomes Increased number of health care practitioners specifically for the LGBT group Reduced cases of stigma related issues and violent acts against LGBT individuals. Increase in the number of LGBT individuals attended in public health institutions. Increase in cases of actions taken against those who intimidate LGBT individuals. Increases in the number of cases treated or attended to that relate to the LGBT people. Long-Term Outcomes Reduced cases of psychiatric cases reported amongst the LGBT group Reduced mortality rates due to Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) and HIV/AIDS among the LGBT group Increased enrollment of LGBT individuals as health practitioners in the public health sector Better coexistence between the LGBT and the society facilitated by a general understanding of the LGBT’s than one that is forced by the rule of law. Increased opinion favoring gay and lesbian marriages among the general public. Stakeholders LGBT individuals- through their experiences they are better positioned in discussing their issues and how they feel the program has affected them. Moreover, as Norway (1989) states, they are the direct beneficiaries of the program hence form the basis for determining the outcome of the program. The Government The government will be involved in the evaluation process because many of its Ministries, Departments and Agencies are involved in implementing parts of the program. Specifically, the government will provide essential data for deliverables and outcomes and also on the progress of implementation. For instance, enrollment of health practitioners and cases of violence against the LGBTs that have been reported and handled can only be provided by the government. The Public Health Sector This sector will directly be involved in the implementation of the program through utilization of any increased funding and handling cases of LGBT individuals who may be ill. In this regard, the sector will provide essential information and data and also highlight any challenges that may be related to the implementation of the program. NGOs Basically, much of the increased funding and other resources necessary for the implementation of the program are contributions from NGOs. As such, they form a basis for evaluating the start of the program cycle. Their expenditures and budgets towards the program will lead to an understanding of how far the program should have gone. Program Implementers This is the special group that is concerned with actualizing the plan. They are, therefore, the best sources of information regarding challenges encountered in the process of implementation and how possibly the approach should be altered. Civil Society Groups These include the Human Rights organizations and courts and will provide information regarding the specific cases that have been dealt with. Moreover, there are specific civil organizations that have been formed specifically for LGBTs and will provide important information and data relating to the progress and outcome of the project. Members of the General Public Societies, religious groups and the members of the public will give information that relates to how LGBTs are viewed in the society. In this regard, the evaluation will be able to relate the program to the acceptance of the LGBTs amongst the society. Design of Framework Generally, the design of the framework should be planned in advance to take care of the direction of the evaluation and the necessary steps to be taken. In addition, the process is iterative meaning that it is continued until such a focused approach is identified that answers the evaluation questions using the methods that all stakeholders agree are feasible, useful, accurate and ethical (Dresang, Gross & Holt, 2006). Further, the evaluation methods and questions should be adjusted so that they optimally match in order to facilitate the use by the LGBT individuals. First, there is need to have a stakeholder meeting to clarify the intent of the evaluation which has already been outlined. The findings of the evaluation will be useful to the program implementers by deciding how different courses of action and approaches to specific problems have facilitated or derailed the desired outcomes. However, the summary evaluation results will be available worldwide so that other countries that may be willing to implement similar programs may have access to. The evaluation should answer the following questions that relate to the mission, objectives, and desired outcomes. To what extent have specific program projects have been implemented? To what extent have different specific projects impacted on the outcomes What are the outcomes of the implemented projects within the program? What are the main challenges faced in the implementation of the different projects under the program? Which specific programs have contributed much to the overall desired outcomes? What specific improvements are needed for different projects under the program? What other unexpected outcomes can be associated with the different projects under the program or, in other words, the externalities associated with the program? To answer the above questions and provide evidence of the claims, the evaluation process will employ various methods of sampling, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. Samples will be collected for evaluation from all the major stakeholders across the country. In the sampling process, care will be taken so that the samples form a correct representation of their respective populations. In specific, the samples will have to take care of geographical location differences, and also rural and urban disparities (Phillips, Brantley & Phillips, 2012). In the view of Norway (1989), in consideration of the sample specifics, both quantitative and qualitative data will be collected from primary and secondary sources for analysis. The quantitative data will involve numerical statistics while qualitative data will involve ranking tests that will be conducted on the samples. Mainly, secondary data will be collected from various medical and public institutions records and government agencies and reports of NGOs. On the other hand, primary data will be collected basically through interviews, direct observations, and questionnaires. The data will then be summarized and analyzed by the evaluation committee using computer software such as SPSS, Stata and Eviews (Dresang, Gross & Holt, 2006). Statisticians will run various analysis processes to determine the various implications of the data collected. The analysis and interpretation of the results will be able to indicate how the program is taking effect on LGBT individuals living in different locations. Moreover, from the results can be based the claims concerning how well or worse the program is with regard to the desired outcomes. Also, the overall results will advise on whether it is necessary to carry on the program to completion or to terminate it due to the costs in terms of being irrelevant in achieving the desired outcome or on the grounds of that it has adverse externalities. Resources The program will require data from the various stakeholders of the program so as to gauge and evaluate the progress of the program. First, the program implementers, NGOs, the government and the Public health sector will provide important information regarding the implementation of the program and how objectives that are stated have been achieved (Norway, 1989). This data will involve the number of LGBT individuals who had attended selected health facilities since the implementation of the program. Financial reports from NGOs, the Public Health sector and other government agencies and direct observation by evaluators will provide information that relates to the far different projects within the program have been implemented. Also, experts and professionals will give information on what they think might be the externalities and challenges associated with the program and later the information will be coded for analysis. An analysis of this information and data will provide evidence of the progress of the program and what percentage has been implemented, challenges encountered, potential areas of improvement and any externalities. On the other hand, LGBT individuals in different locations will be interviewed and others given questionnaires to provide information about the outcome of the programs. Members of the public opinions will be assessed through online questionnaires to determine the issues of stigma have been addressed by the program. Civil society groups will also be given questionnaires to state the opinions regarding the program and how it affects their members (Phillips, Brantley & Phillips, 2012). In addition, the records of various civil society organizations and law courts will provide on the number of cases reported and those dealt with that relate to the LGBTs. Further, the opinions, critics, suggestions of different members of the civil society organizations will also be recorded. This data and information will provide evidence, after analysis, for the outcome of different projects under the program. Selection of the Methods Notably, the samples may not be as accurate in representing information regarding the LGBTs especially due to disparities caused by the difference in geographical locations. However, Phillips, Brantley and Phillips (2012) assert that the sampling method does offer convenience, saves costs and when applied appropriately, using some defined formulas, it also offers almost equally accurate information like the population would have. Also, the sampling technique is good in this case because due to stigma many LGBTs may not want to be known to the public. Contrary, the unwillingness to provide information may be seen as a weakness of the sampling technique since the sample population is normally based on the entire population and therefore, it is difficult to calculate the representative sample population where the entire population is unknown. Considering the data collection techniques, the interviews are too costly especially due to costs of interpretation needs in cases of a language barrier, or in cases like in this, where they need to be conducted by professionals. However, for this evaluation they are used in specific cases like in getting the opinions of experts and professionals for whom Dresang, Gross and Holt (2006) suggest are effective. The online questionnaires for the public are less costly and reach a wide number of the population. However, they are at the same time biased against illiterate individuals, and most aged people who don’t use the internet often. Further, the online questionnaires may not be taken too seriously by internet users hence may present inaccurate information in some cases. In addition, the qualitative data though, provides means for measuring unquantifiable attributes, it's prone to misunderstandings. Finally, the secondary data is in many cases subject to manipulations during entry but in this case it is the only means for accessing vital information related to the outcomes of the program. Findings The summary of the data and code information shall be run on regression and correlation analysis to define the relationships between different program variables and the outcomes. The use of statistical significance and Analysis of Variance shall be employed in the data analysis and in presenting the findings. Measures of central tendency, as well as frequency distributions for data collected during the program period, shall be employed in the findings. Statisticians in the evaluation committee shall interpret the data relative to different stakeholders and present it (Norway, 1989). The means of presentation shall be a compiled summary report of the findings that shall be available in hard and soft copies. Dissemination of the Findings The findings shall be sent to the relevant stakeholders in hard and soft copies so that the report may be available on their websites. However, there is to be compiled a summary report for the public that eliminates sensitive information findings regarding the LGBTs. This will reach more people fast and is less costly. The report shall also be available in all public libraries (Dresang, Gross & Holt, 2006). Follow Up Plan The different stakeholders after receiving the report will decide how to make use of the findings. Specifically for the evaluation committee it will liaise with the program implementers to improve on identified areas, overcome any barriers and integrate data collection with the implementation phase so that later evaluations will be easy, less costly and more accurate. A similar evaluation report shall be compiled yearly to check on the progress of the program and the impact of the introduced changes. References Dresang, E. T., Gross, M., & Holt, L. E. (2006). Dynamic youth services through outcome-based planning and evaluation. Chicago: American Library Assoc. Dworkin, S. H., & Yi, H. (2003). LGBT identity, violence, and social justice: The psychological is political. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 25(4), 269-279. Gates, G. J., & Newport, F. (2012). Special report: 3.4% of US adults identify as LGBT. Washington, DC: Gallup. Norway. (1989). Guide to planning and evaluating NGO projects. Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, Division for Non-Governmental Organizations. Phillips, J. J., Brantley, W., & Phillips, P. P. (2012). Project management ROI: A step-by-step guide for measuring the impact and ROI for projects. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Read More