situational analysis as a process tool in human services programming
DESCRIPTION
Situational Analysis as a Process Tool in Human Services Programming. Presented By Gary Bess, PhD Jim Myers, MSW Gary Bess Associates School of Social Work, California State University, Chico [email protected] [email protected]. Presentation Overview. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Situational Analysis Situational Analysis as a Process Tool in as a Process Tool in Human Services Human Services ProgrammingProgramming
Presented ByGary Bess, PhD
Jim Myers, MSW
Gary Bess AssociatesSchool of Social Work, California State
University, [email protected]
2
Presentation Overview1. Process evaluation defined, and its
contribution to developing programs
2. Evaluator’s role in process evaluation in developing programs
3. SWOT assessment defined4. Using the SWOT in a pilot
program5. Longitudinal tracing of themes
within the developing program
3
Process Evaluation Process evaluation assesses reasons for successful or unsuccessful performance, and provides information for potential replication [italics added]. Process Evaluation focuses on how a program was implemented and operates. It identifies the procedures undertaken and the decisions made in developing the program. It describes how the program operates, the services it delivers, and the functions it carries out. *
**http://www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org/html/glossary/p.htmlhttp://www.bja.evaluationwebsite.org/html/glossary/p.html
4
Process EvaluationAs a newer form of evaluation research, process evaluation is generally associated with qualitative methods, in that “process” is by definition a qualitative exercise. Concurrent assessments, however, of quantitative results (e.g., number of clients serviced or changes in functioning) -- above or below projections -- are used as measures of the program having met its designers’ expectations.
5
Process Evaluation
Process evaluation is a method of recording and documenting salient ideas, concerns, activities, administrative and management structures, staffing patterns, products, and resources that emerge during the program’s developmental cycle.
6
Process Evaluation Similar to outcome evaluation that measures the
results of a project’s implementation against programmatic projections.
Process evaluation assesses a priori assumptions, such as staff qualifications and training, usefulness of resources provided by other agencies, family or stakeholder receptivity to engagement, client acceptance criteria, and other planned activities and anticipated responses.
7
Evaluator's Role in Process Evaluation The evaluator’s relationship with program staff is key.
Given the intimacy of interaction, a trust level must be developed between the evaluation team and the program team.
It is essential that evaluators convey their support for the project’s success, tempered by a constructive objectivity, which translates into formative reflection and input.
8
SWOT Assessment
Having addressed the evaluator’s role in process evaluation, we wish to introduce an experimental technique for documenting developmental processes within programs. It is an approach that creates a new functional role for the evaluator.
9
SWOT AssessmentThe technique is a facilitated SWOT analysis, conducted by the evaluator. SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (Barry, 1986).
In a conventional SWOT analysis, variations of following questions are sequentially asked . . .
10
SWOT Assessment1. What are the program’s internal and external strengths?2. What are the program’s internal and external
weaknesses?3. What opportunities are present, within the program and
in the environment that surrounds the program?4. What threats exist – either internally or externally – that
could adversely affect the program’s efforts?
11
Overview of the Pilot ProgramWe used the SWOT as part of a 30-month
pilot initiative in which the authors were engaged by a northern California county consortium of public agencies to evaluate a California Board of Correction’s (BOC) funded Mentally-Ill Offender Crime Reduction Project (MIOCR) – known on the county level as FOREST: Forensic Resource Team.
Process evaluation data was obtained between May 2002 and June 2004, during which time the authors documented the developmental model.
12
Overview of the Pilot Program
The partners were: County’s Superior Court Department of Behavioral Health Sheriff’s Department Probation Department District Attorney’s Office Public Defender’s Office
13
SWOT Assessment: Pilot Program
The SWOT assessment’s dual focus on internal and external dynamics was important, in that the developmental process could have been influenced by environmental changes (external) as well as program-related issues (internal).
14
The SWOT was conducted approximately every three months in a office or meeting room.
Key participants – project staff and managers – were invited, often as part of, or in place of, a regularly scheduled staff meeting.
Supplies included one or two large newsprint pads an easels, markers, and tape.
As sheets were completed, they were taped on walls so participants were able to review previously cited perceptions.
SWOT Assessment: Pilot Program
15
Ground rules pertained to:
Allowing everyone to speak
Not challenging others’ ideas, but offering your own perceptions, even if they may differ
No labeling of responses as either correct or incorrect
Focus on issues and not solutions
SWOT Assessment: Pilot Program
16
Sometimes clarification was requested as statements were ambiguous or incomplete, such as when “resources” were noted as a weakness, which could refer to monetary or programmatic materials or professional expertise.
SWOT Assessment: Pilot Program
17
An assessment of content specific themes identified during early SWOTs, and their progression throughout the program’s lifecycle are presented in Figures 1 through 7.
Themes Manifesting
18
Figure 1: Commitment of Staff to FOREST Program
Month of SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
May 2002
Commitment of staff
October 2002
Continued commitment of
staff
February 2003
[Staff] turnover low
May 2003
Implications for staff turnover – staff transitions
September 2003
December 2003
Staff attrition as the end of
the program looms
March 2004
BCBH to continue staff positions after FOREST ends that are dedicated to
current clients
June 2004
No premature staff departure
19
Figure 2: Cross-Training Among Collaborative Partners
Month of SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
May 2002
October 2002
Lack of cross-training among
disciplines
February 2003
May 2003 Need more cross-training on
other disciplines
September 2003
December 2003
March 2004
Cross-training/
sensitivity among staff
June 2004
Develop BOC web resources on training correctional officers [to work with mentally-ill offenders]
20
Figure 3: Seeking New Grants/ Continuation Funding to Sustain FOREST
Month of SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
May 2002
October 2002
New grants
February 2003
Future grants/ private funding
May 2003
Grant submissions & Jurisdictional mental health
grant being submitted
September 2003
December 2003
Locate future funding
for FOREST to continue
Future funding has not yet been located or approved
March 2004
Looking for SAMHSA grant
June 2004 No money to directly help
clients beyond June 30, 2004
Helping new mental health court programs could
produce possible funding for FOREST
Funding ending – no new treatment funding
21
Figure 4: Client Entry into FOREST – Client Eligibility and Screening Issues
Month of SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
May 2002
Speedy intakes; Quick intake screening process
Clear definition of eligibility. Lack of credibility in
the screening process Eligibility hearings adds to calendar and slows process down
October 2002
Continuous education about eligibility requirements
February 2003
Getting clients on court calendar. Ineligible referrals.
Protocols aren’t clear
May 2003
September 2003
Process of getting screened clients on court calendar. Delay in making client eligibility decisions
because of client substance abuse issues
December 2003
Processing potential FOREST participants
March 2004
Getting clients calendared – slow process.
Enrollment into FOREST driven by push for dollars and study requirements
June 2004
Intake process compromised due to emphasis in making numbers. Limited access to clients in jail; limited background on which to base acceptance. Study required no change to admission criteria,
although experience could have helped in selection
22
Figure 5: Transitioning Clients Out of FOREST
Month of SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
May 2002
October 2002
February 2003
Lack of transition planning
May 2003
Smooth transitions
September 2003
Client transitions are
too slow
December 2003
Transition of clients to regular
services
March 2004
Treatment services post-graduation is insufficient as
clients transition from intensive levels of care to lower
levels of care
Clumsy transitions for clients
not ready to exit when program ends
June 2004
Successful linkages for clients leaving programs
[Forced] transition for clients not yet ready to leave
23
Figure 6: Multi-Agency Collaborative Approach – Internal Workings
Month of
SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
May 2002
Cooperation across staff. Collaborative history among
agencies. Credibility due to multi-agency participation. Sheriff-to-be
is on team
Lack of District Attorney (DA)/ Public Defender (PD) participation in meetings. DA and PD interface is adversarial.
Lack of continuity for intervention planning – different agencies have differing approaches
October 2002
Clear understanding of collaborative. Positive relationship
among agencies To be even more collaborative
Feb. 2003
Problem resolution across departments easier and quicker to
achieve. Team achieves what individual agencies can’t. Flexibility. “We” identity
Diverging ideologies – sometimes agencies have
different goals Conflict between DA & PD on
client screenings into FOREST
May 2003
Agree to disagree. Good team support. Staff increasing
knowledge of other agencies
September 2003
Learning to disagree without
disagreeing
Communication among team Issues in other agencies “spill over” into collaborative
December 2003
Program Coordinator has strengthened and tightened-up
team cooperation
Some lack of professional behavior at FOREST meeting
and pre-court meetings
Lack of FOREST staff projecting professional image at FOREST meetings and pre-court meetings
March 2004
Collaboration across all agencies. Court room feels like a safe
place…not adversarial among agencies
Relationships between agencies
allow for new collaborative ventures
24
Figure 7: Public Relations Month
of SWOT
Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
May 2002
Public awareness of the program. Awareness of programs among
allied agencies
October 2002 Client misbehavior/ bad press
Feb. 2003 Contact local media to expand
awareness of program
High profile decomposition of clients. Clients dropping out of
program
May 2003
Community perceptions; heightened awareness in the
general community. Client success stories.
Potential of public event – bad press
September 2003
No graduates have gone to jail
Publicity – media attention for the 10 graduates. Education of
elected officials about FOREST clients. Community awareness-
residential treatment programs are expanding to dual issues
December 2003
Good success with other allied agencies
March 2004
Connection with community. Client success stories. Notoriety
among treatment facilities. Positive publicity
Graduated clients have difficulty adjusting to less structure – drop services
and are rearrested
June 2004
Community wants program continued; it has been well-
received
25
Thank You!