Session 6

Questions about the evaluations

Describe the program (goals and activities)

Describe the evaluation
1. Who were Stakeholders?
2. Who conducted the evaluation?
3. What kind of evaluation was it (input, process,
outcome, impact)?
4. What research design was used?
5. Who was the sample?
6. What types of data were collected?
7. How did they analyze the data?
8. What did they find?

Evaluation of the Healthy Village Program in
Kapit District, Sarawak, Malaysia

The program: What were the programs goals and
strategy?

Goals: Broaden traditional health activities; encourage
inter-sectoral collaboration; more health screening
especially non-communicable diseases, accidents and
injuries, environmental hygiene and communicable
disease.

Activities: Food preparation, fire safety, smoking (must
go outdoors, no smoking signs, fines, encourage
exercise, well-person clinics, self-exam and other
screening; adequate ventilation and other fire
prevention measure; rubbish disposal; education on
safe food handling, remove stray animals;


Describe the evaluation
1. Who were Stakeholders?
Kapit Health Office, WHO, villages, village
leaders
2. Who conducted the evaluation?
University of Sydney, University of Queensland,
Kapit Division of Health, WHO
3. What kind of evaluation was it (input, process,
outcome, impact)? Outcome
4. What research design was used?
One shot case study
Collected retrospective data; no baseline data
Concerns about Selection bias
study conducted 2 years after program started

5. Sample
March/April 2003 12 longhouses in Kapit district
10 study longhouses and 2 comparison
~ 20 interview/village
subjects chosen because spoke English and/or availability
1 Focus group/village; authorities, ~8 subjects, interview
guide
observation to confirm other information
6. What types of data were collected?
participant observation and key informant
interviews
interview checklist semi-structured
7. How did they analyze the data?
narrative description (no tables, quotes, etc)
8. What did they find
5/10 completed some changes in all program areas
Descriptive data on program elements
additional findings: partnerships,

Evaluation of the School Supplementary
Feeding Program in Peninsular Malaysia

Describe the program (goals and activities)
improve health and nutritional status of children
1. prevent malnutrition
2. education children on food selection
3. encourage parent, teachers, and public participation
4. strength health and nutrition programs in schools

Objectives of the study:
a. To evaluate the financial management and budget disbursement
of SSFP
b. To evaluate the management of food preparation in SSFP
c. To observe the types and acceptance of the food served to
supplemented school children
d. To evaluate the nutrient content of food served


Describe the evaluation
1. Who were Stakeholders?
2. Who conducted the evaluation? 3 universities
3. What kind of evaluation was it?
implementation (inputs, process, some outcome)
4. What research design was used?
cross-sectional
5. Who was the sample?
129 schools (participation rate, urban/rural)
matched samples, parents
6. What types of data were collected?
questionnaires to parents, staff, interview
administrators, nutritional content
7. How did they analyze the data?
descriptive data tables

What did they find: Problems
a. Delay in receiving budget has led to loss of interest
in food preparation by the food operators.
b. Food is sometimes prepared and portioned out
too early, resulting in cold food being served.
c. An inferiority feeling is experienced by some
children as this program is meant for poor
children.
d. Unsatisfactory water supply and insufficient basic
facilities in some schools, made preparation
difficult.
e. Teachers involved in managing the program
experienced increased work load.

Recommendations
a. Need to revise the income criteria as the current
income level of RM150 is no longer applicable.
b. The allocated budget per child needs to be revised in
tandem with price increase of ingredients.
c. Budget should be received so the program can start
off at the beginning of the term.
d. The SSFP should be given to all children for schools
with a total population of 150 students and below.
e. Schools should be given freedom to modify menus if
necessary to enhance food acceptance.

Preliminary Evaluation of the STRIDE
Program
Describe the program (goals and activities)
Preventive drug education program

Enhance interpersonal skills and develop
resilience of students through physical and
health education curriculum

12 lectures, physical activities, role playing
New curriculum for 3 months + 3-day camp

Describe the evaluation
1. Who were Stakeholders?
Ministry of Education
National Narcotics Agency
Institute for Medical Research
Police Department
2. Who conducted the evaluation?
Universities plus Ministry
3. What kind of evaluation was it?
Outcome knowledge (not actual use)
4. What research design was used?
pre-post (before/after)
5. Who was the sample?
9 schools from 3 states (purposive; high
prevalence)
stratified cluster random sampling (random
classes)
N= 301 students (75% matched at post-test)
6. What types of data were collected?
pretested questionnaires
15 objective dichotomous questions
7. How did they analyze the data?
SPSS and statistical tests
8. What did they find?
Mostly positive
Some surprising negative impacts
Inconsistent qualifications of trainers
Problem with timing during school day

Evaluation in Malaysia
Malaysian Evaluation Society
http://mes.org.my/home/

Briefing on Performance Management and
Program Evaluation in the Malaysian
Government
http://www.agc.gov.my/pdf/pekeliling/pelbag
ai/Performance_Management.pdf