|
A state-level working committee responsible for
conducting project evaluation to determine 1) the project’s effectiveness in
meeting the specific goals and objectives of the grant 2) measuring the
client and systems outcomes.
Development and execution of an evaluation
workplan that focuses on three major areas specified in the grant:
implementation fidelity, process evaluation, and outcome evaluation.
Implementation fidelity -Implementation fidelity focuses on how closely
implementation matches the grant plans, where deviations in planned
activities occur, the reasons for these deviations, and the impact of
deviations on the grant objectives. Deviations are noted, discussed and
possible impact assessed so that potential problems can be minimized.
Documentation of project activities are provided to the evaluation staff to
document implementation fidelity.
Process evaluation -Process evaluation focuses on what specific project
activities have been supported by COSIG funding and who has participated or
received these services. Each component of the project is evaluated to
assess the quality and efficiency of the various activities. The primary
focus is on whether the process is functioning well enough so it has a
reasonable chance of achieving desired outcomes. It is very important to
note that a continuous improvement approach is used in this portion of the
evaluation in order to provide feedback as quickly as possible so changes
can be made as needed to improve processes.
A variety of data collection techniques may be employed here including (but
not limited to) examination of meeting notes and minutes, evaluator
observation of selected activities, peer review of clinical processes, focus
groups with appropriate groups, quantitative evaluation of training and
conference activities, and quantitative measures to assess satisfaction with
the consensus building process (more described below).
Outcome evaluation -Outcome evaluation focuses on the impact of grant
activities on the service delivery system and the clients, including
measurement of outcome of treatments on service participants, factors
associated with these outcomes, and sustainability of these outcomes. For
our purposes, we further divide this portion of the evaluation into two
sub-groups: output evaluation and true outcome evaluation.
Outputs - Outputs provide short term data that may be a leading
indicator of future outcomes and thus are important to evaluate. R regular
examination of these as well as process measures enhances the likelihood
that the project will achieve longer term outcomes. A key output of the
project will the training outcomes. Training outcomes are usually assessed
with at least three levels of outcomes: participant perceptions, learning,
and performance outcomes. Another key output measure is consensus quality
measures to assess the consensus building process. Simply put, the consensus
building process should result in a reasonable level of consensus or
improved treatment outcomes are not as likely to occur.
True Outcomes - Much of the focus of the Evaluation Steering Committee
is expected to be on designing true outcome measures that reflect
improvements in patient outcomes. This is a critical part of the
infrastructure that will emerge from this grant. Participants from OAD, OMH
and other consultants and stakeholders examine performance indicators and
measures available and determine measures to be used in the evaluation.
Performance indicators will be selected from the following: SAMHSA
performance indicators; CMHS evaluation tools and guidelines; OMH and OAD
performance indicators currently tracked.
Fidelity Assessment Executive Overview
(.PDF)
Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) Fidelity Tool
(.PDF)
Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) Manual
(.PDF)
Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) Fidelity Tool - Mental
Health Version (.PDF)
Dual Diagnosis in Addiction Treatment (DDCAT) Manual - Mental Health
Version (.PDF)
COSIG – Program Evaluation (PE) Committee Workplan (.PDF)
View All Provider Publications
|