Unclassified
Download 3.47 Mb. View original pdf
|
600-85, KSARNG, Substance Abuse Prevention & Control, 2007 Jun 1(2)
| 13 – 3. Process evaluation a. Process evaluation consists of actions to monitor the implementation and execution of substance abuse efforts at all echelons. Sustaining internal controls, collecting data to on performance process and output indicators, inspections and tracking programmatic inputs by function are key components in this comprehensive assessment stage. b. Internal controls. Use of the Process Assessment Checklist (see app D and Internal Control Evaluation (see app G) serve as an internal assessment tools at the installation. Results can also be used to inform continuous process improvement or provide valuable information fora formal program review. c. Measures of Performance. The execution of a task (process) will result in a product or service (outputs. Collecting data on the number of processes performed is useful in assessing workload and its subsequent output. However, it does not by itself address the effectiveness of the ongoing efforts. Further information maybe needed from each output to help inform if the desired effect sought (outcome) of the task was actually achieved. (1) Collecting the right information is important and can changeover time. Publication of the annual substance abuse Measures of Performance by function, will occur annually by ARD. (2) Process, output and outcome performance indicators will be tracked down to the installation and command level function (ARD will maintain a complete list complete with definition formula and update every fiscal year as required. The following are not an all-inclusive performance indicator list. d. Key functional process, output, and outcome performance indicators include (1) Deterrence Process and Output Indicators. (a) of Required UPLs. (b) of trained UPLs. (c) UPL courses performed. (d) of Soldiers completed UPL training. (e) Soldier specimens shipped to FTDTL. (f) Soldier specimens tested by FTDTL. (g) Soldier specimens rejected by FTDTL (by UIC). (h) Soldiers tested (1 x time only. (i) Soldier specimens testing positive. (j) Soldier specimens submitted for medical review. (k) Soldier specimens confirmed as testing positive but legitimate use. (l) Civilian specimens submitted for UA testing. (m) Civilian specimens confirmed as testing positive. (n) Civilian TDP DoT breathalyzer tests performed. (o) Civilian TDP DoT breathalyzer tests with positive results. (2) Deterrence Outcome Indicators. (a) FY Units with two (2) or more certified UPLs Rate. (b) FY Drug Testing Discrepancy Rate. (c) FY Soldier/Civilian Random Testing Rate. (d) FY Soldier Testing Rate. (e) FY Soldier/Civilian Confirmed Illicit positive rate. (3) Prevention Process and Output Indicators. (a) Soldiers taking URI/R – URI Self Report Inventory. (b) Companies undergoing URI/R – URI Self Report Inventories. (4) Prevention Outcome Indicators. (a) FY ADAPT Completion Rate. (b) FY ADAPT Recidivism Rate. (5) Assistance Process and Output Indicators. (a) Soldiers enrolled in ADAPT. (b) Soldiers self-enrolled in ADAPT. AR 600–85 • 23 July 2020 79 (c) Soldiers enrolled within 60 days of determination to attend ADAPT. (d) ADAPT enrollees who complete ADAPT training. (e) ADAPT graduates with no drug/alcohol relapses less than 1 year. (f) Soldiers with alcohol related incidences. (g) Soldier Army Retention Status at time of discharge. (h) Soldiers not successfully completing assistance and discharged from assistance. (i) Soldiers not successfully completing Retention Status at time of discharge. (j) EAP Organizational consultations performed. (k) EAP DAC mediations performed. (l) DACs referred to EAP for confirmed positive for illicit drugs. (m) DACs referred to EAP for DWIs self or command referred. (n) DACs with other adult living problems/issues seeking EAP assistance. (o) DACs assessed by EAP. (p) DACs recommendations prepared by EAP. (q) EAP recommendations accepted by client. (r) EAP client sessions. (s) EAP client cases closed. (t) EAP clients still employed after 1 year. (u) EAP clients performing at Satisfactory or higher level. (v) EAP clients contacted through longitudinal case tracking. (6) Assistance Outcome Indicators. (a) FY EAP Consultation Success Rate. (b) FY EAP Mediation Success Rate. (c) FY EAP Client Satisfaction Rate. (7) Capturing data. The preceding list of indicators are not all inclusive. Data will be tracked harnessing the ADOR that captures the output or it will be done manually and stored in ADOR accordingly (for example DAMIS). ARD will maintain an updated copy of the performance indicator and provide access as required to all stakeholders. e. Inspections. Commands implementing the substance abuse programs should conduct onsite inspections only when clear negative patterns and trends arise within the functional process and performance indicators. The only required inspection will occur within the function of deterrence, specifically the sub tasks associated to drug testing. (1) The ARD delegates inspection authority to IMCOM and AMC to perform these inspections. Each installation or depot will be inspected at least onetime in a year period, commencing with revision of this regulation. Processes and procedures to be inspected includes (a) Military UA collections. (b) Civilian UA collections. (c) DTCP operations. (d) Testing Designated Position management. (e) Unit Prevention Leader training. (2) Commands will report to ARD at the end of each FY, the number of installations/depots inspected and the resulting trends, issues, and best practices identified within drug testing. f. Process evaluation will rely upon each command with dedicated manpower on their force management document for substance abuse, to annually track the substance abuse programmatic inputs by function. ARD will establish a repository in an ADOR to annually track input indicators associated to the substance abuse effort by location. Input indicators measure the various resources that go into a program. At the conclusion of each FY, data compiled will be leveraged during either the processor program evaluation stage. At a minimum commands will report the following (1) Financial. Budgeted and executed dollars by MDEP and function. (2) Personnel. Average on hand quantity of personnel, by function, broken out by military, civil service and contractor to support. (3) Personnel Professional Characteristic. Qualifications and total years experience of functional personnel. (4) Personnel Personal Characteristics. Individual characteristics of staff such as average age, gender and ethnic background) Facilities. Number of buildings used and rooms. (6) Best Practices. Identified changes in processes or procedures that illustrate potential to create positive conditional change. g. Process evaluation is a methodical collection of information to document and assess the implementation and execution of the substance abuse. The data assists in determining if efforts are being implemented as designed and can AR 600–85 • 23 July 2020 80 be used to improve the delivery and efficiency of the program. It sets the stage fora periodic program evaluation effort. Download 3.47 Mb. Share with your friends:
|