ECUR809:  Assignment Two

Stufflebeam: Not simply a super cool name



As if any kind of diabetes isn’t scary enough, what about gestational diabetes?  A woman, carrying her unborn child, develops gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and then she is at greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes herself, as well as her child developing type 2 diabetes, and at a younger age.   With aboriginal women being at a greater risk of developing GDM, it does seem only logical, in fact also responsible, to develop an exercise program for prenatal aboriginal women to hopefully decrease the chances of developing GDM.   This program provided women with monitored exercise, education, nutrition, and camaraderie.   If I were to evaluate this program, I would use Stufflebeam`s CIPP model to look at the context, input, process and product of the program.  Since the CIPP model is comprehensive and summative, and this program has already been completed, I believe it would be the most effective model with which to conduct a program evaluation of this specific program. 

The context of this prenatal exercise program would therefore acknowledge the program goals and priorities to assess whether or not the outcomes of the program were reaching those goals. I believe this would be very effective as the goals of the program are clear: the long-term goal is to decrease  type 2 diabetes in aboriginal populations, and the short-term goal to decrease GDM in active participants.   Input evaluations for this program would certainly look at budgets, as it was not mentioned in the case study, as well as staffing and competing action plans.  Is this program cost-effective in relation to its goals and priorities?  The program is free for participants, so there is a greater need/ accountability to maintain cost-effectiveness and goals.  The process evaluation would look at the weekly implementation of the exercise program, how the staff are carrying it out, and ask the participants to judge the effectiveness of the program.  However, in this case the participant judgement could possibly not be related to the program goals, as the participants may not know whether their chances of developing GDM have been decreased.  Although they may receive many other benefits from the program, which would relate to the possible short-term goals, and may still affect other areas such as staffing or budget.   Similarly, the product evaluation would assess the short and long term outcomes of the program.  The questions of whether or not the needs were addressed and if the effort succeeded would be a summative report using the findings of the context, input, processes and products of this program.  I would be very interested in looking at the sustainability of the program as well, and that would be part of the CIPP evaluation.