This document discusses approaches to evaluating community health interventions and standards for evaluation. It describes three types of evaluation: structure, process, and outcome evaluation. It outlines four key standards for evaluation: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. It then discusses formative and summative evaluation, who can conduct evaluations, and types of documentation and community profiling in evaluation.

1. EVALUATION
PREPARED BY :
MARY RUTH V. ENRIQUEZ, RN MAN

2. EVALUATION OF
COMMUNITY HEALTH INTERVENTIONS
• EVALUATION APPROACHES – may be directed towards structure, process and /or
outcome.
• Structure evaluation: involves looking into the manpower and physical
resources of the agency responsible for community health interventions.
• Process evaluation : is examining the manner by which assessment , diagnosis,
planning, implementation, and evaluation were undertaken.
• Outcome evaluation: is determining the degree of attainment of goals and
objectives.

3. STANDARDS OF EVALUATION
(CDC, 2011)
• BASES FOR A GOOD EVALUATION are its:
Utility
Feasibility
Propriety
Accuracy

4. STANDARDS OF EVALUATION
• Utility – is the value of the evaluation in terms of usefulness of results.
• The evaluation of community health interventions will be of great use to the
community health group ( the nurse, other members of the health team, and the
community representatives), as it helps the group gain insight into strengths and
weaknesses of the plan and manner of its implementations.
• basis for utilizing the community health process in dealing with other community
concerns in the future.
• Communicated to the LG (barangay & municipal/city )authorities. = results may
also promotes policy changes, such as budgetary allocations.

5. UTILITY
• build up the community’s experience & develop confidence in
their own capability to deal with community concerns.
• Evaluation - evaluators are credible & the results are released &
disseminated promptly
• time when they are needed by the people concerned
(Community Toolbox, 2013).

6. FEASIBILITY
• answers the questions of whether the plan for evaluation is
doable or not, considering available resources.
• Resources include facilities, time, & expertise for conducting
the evaluation.
• Feasibility entails anticipation of how the results of the
evaluation will be received by different groups and how to
avoid possible misuse of the data derived from the process.

7. PROPRIETY
• involves ethical and legal matters
• Respect for the worth & dignity of the participants in data
collection should be given due consideration
• results of evaluation should be truthfully reported to show the
strengths & weaknesses of the community
• transparency & accountability should be observed in all financial
matters related to the community health action (Community
toolbox, 2013).

8. ACCURACY
• validity & reliability of the results of evaluation.
• Accurate evaluation begins with accurate
documentation while the community health process is
ongoing.

9. THE PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
• Evaluations may be categorized according to their purpose.
• This is perhaps the most important criteria of all, because the
purpose of an evaluation often dictates who carries out the
evaluation, how it is carried out, and when it is carried out.
• The two types of evaluation described below formative and
summative – are not mutually exclusive. Many evaluations
contain a bit of both. But one purpose is usually more dominant.

10. TYPES OF EVALUATION
Formative
Summative
 https://www.intrac.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Types-of-
Evaluation.pdf

11. FORMATIVE
• A formative evaluation is normally carried out during a
project or programme, often at the mid-point. The
purpose of a formative evaluation is to help shape the
future of the project or programme concerned, and
thereby improve performance.
• A formative evaluation tends to be more focused on
learning and management than accountability.

12. SUMMATIVE
• a summative evaluation is often carried out at the end of a
project or programme.
• It is usually designed to assess what was achieved, and how.
• Summative evaluations are often implemented when a project
or programme has ended, or is about to end, and it is no
longer possible to make changes to that project or
programme. However, lessons may still be learned that could
help shape future interventions.

13. WHO CONDUCTS THE EVALUATION
Another way of categorizing evaluations is according to who conducts the
evaluation. Most evaluations conform to one of the following categories.
• External or independent
• An internal or self-evaluation
• End of phase
• An ex-post evaluation
• a Realtime Evaluation (RTE)

14. EXTERNAL OR INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS
• are carried out by a person or team who are not part of the project or
programme being evaluated, or part of the organization carrying out the
project or programme.
• This is probably the most common type of evaluation.
• The rationale is that external people are more likely to be objective in their
assessment of performance than project or programme staff. External people
may also bring expertise that is not normally available within the project or
programme.

15. AN INTERNAL OR SELF-EVALUATION
• is carried out by staff who are part of a project or programme.
Most monitoring systems have some degree of self-evaluation.
This is because staff are regularly asked to collect and analyze
information on change throughout the course of a been
achieved (or what has changed) and why.
• It is therefore often described as a summative evaluation. Many
donors insist on final evaluations as a condition of funding.

16. END OF PHASE EVALUATIONS
• are used in multi-phase initiatives.
• They are summative in that they seek to understanding what has
been achieved in the current phase, and formative in that they
shape decisions for the next phase.
• End of phase evaluations are more commonly used in complex
projects or programmes, operating in difficult or uncertain
environments.

17. AN EX-POST EVALUATION
• is carried out a while after a project or programme has
finished.
• This can be anything from six months to ten years afterwards.
• Ex-post evaluations are normally designed to address issues of
impact and sustainability.
• They are almost entirely summative.

18. REALTIME EVALUATION (RTE)
• A final type of evaluation in this categorization is a real-time
evaluation (RTE). RTEs are primarily designed to be used in
emergency settings, and are often carried out near to the start of a
humanitarian project or programme.
• Their purpose is to provide feedback in real time to those managing
the project or programme.
• They are almost entirely formative in nature.

19. DOCUMENTATION
AND REPORT

20. COMMUNITY PROFILLING
• a process of creating a series of information that is applied to something or
someone through techniques of data elaboration.
• Community profiling is a method used to establish a better understanding and
description of the community in a specific geographical location and its
community members context and reality.
• Practiced by various development agencies, stakeholders, or practitioners for
different purposes. But the common denominator in community profiles is that it
serves as a ‘’ means of obtaining accurate information of relevance to policy
planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation’’

21. • community profiling plays an
important role in identifying
different community situations,
needs, and resources that can be
used for development campaigns,
broader and creative development
strategies, and assessments for
future development.

22. A RESOURCES TO BE CONSIDERED
COMMUNITY PROFILING
• History
• People of the community
• Presence of different agencies, support
groups, and institutions
• Health and welfare and development
programs
• Work and economy
• Housing needs and resources
assessment
• Leisure
• Religion
• Aspects related to people with special
needs

23. TYPES OF COMMUNITY PROFILING
1.Rapid appraisal
2.Priority searching
3.Compass
4.Needs assessment
5.Community consultations
6.Social audit
https://www.studocu.com/ph/document/quezon-national-high-school/social-
psychology/handouts-in-community-profiling-humanities-and-social-sciences/17077661

24. RAPID APPRAISAL
• This type of profiling deals with how the researchers extract data by means
of observation and by conducting a discussion with the key informants
from the community.
• This type of profiling is deemed as budget- friendly and can save a lot of
time.
• Rapid appraisal is called as such because of its speed in gathering the
needed data from the community.

25. PRIORITY SEARCHING
• In this type of profiling the primary means of data collection is a
focus group discussion.
• A general questions is asked in the FGD (focus group discussion)
and the gathered responses will then be used as basis of the
research survey (specifically, a questionnaire).

26. COMPASS
• This method uses a 400-items questionnaires which also allows the
respondents to add their own questions. Because this method of
profiling requires expertise when it comes to sampling and report
writing, it is not commonly used by community groups.

27. NEEDS ASSESSMENT
• This is usually done by certain agencies to plan out what type of
policy is needed in certain community.
• This type of profiling makes use of existing data and or is backed by
other data that may be of help in determining the community’s
needs.

28. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION
• Involves conducting meetings and consultation with the
community members. These consultations may be in the
form of focus groups, online questionnaires, citizen panels
and citizens juries and planning for real exercises.

29. SOCIAL AUDIT
• This deals with measuring and producing reports regarding the
health of a certain community. Which in turn, gives researchers an
idea of the community, which in turn, gives researchers an idea of
the communities’ status and well-being.
• Social audits can be conducted in various levels such as community,
city, or district level.

30. STRENGTHS OF COMMUNITY PROFILING
• Empowerment of community members
• Alignment with social work codes of practices and values.
• Anti-oppressive in nature
• Holistic in nature

31. LIMITATIONS OF COMMUNITY PROFILING
• Lack of resources
• Expertise in the method
• Involvement of community members
• Structural constraints