Unclassified
Chapter 13 Comprehensive Assessment
Download 3.47 Mb. View original pdf
|
600-85, KSARNG, Substance Abuse Prevention & Control, 2007 Jun 1(2)
| Chapter 13 Comprehensive Assessment 13 – 1. Overview a. The ASAP Comprehensive Assessment relies upon a framework of process and program evaluation. It facilitates) Enhancement of program and functional management through the continuous collection of information that monitors program performance. (2) Establishment of accountability to funding sources and stakeholders and improves the integration of all substance abuse functions at every level of command. (3) Determination of the efficacy and effectiveness of each substance abuse function. b. The overall authority for this assessment effort is grounded in the Government Performance Results Act-Mod- ernization Act (GPRA – MA) of 2010. Key overarching policy documents from the Office of the National Drug Control Policy, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Defense, and Army HQs leadership will support the establishment of the programs goals and objectives for each function. Goals and objectives inform the development of performance indicators for use during process and program evaluation throughout the life cycle of this effort. Documenting the substance abuse performance results will occur within an Army Authoritative Database of Record (ADOR). (1) The ARD is responsible for establishing the goals and objectives for each substance abuse function in conjunction with key stakeholders. They will be linked to the ARD Strategic Objectives. Performance indicators for each function, will be developed, nested to the appropriate functional objectives for use during the process and program evaluation stages when assessing the effectiveness of the substance abuse program. (2) Process evaluation is the continuous and systematic collection and analysis of information (data) to provide leaders and key stakeholders with an indication as to the extent of progress against stated goals and objectives. Stakeholders critical activities (tasks that if not completed will cause program failure) produce process and output indicators, commonly referred to as Measures of Performance (MOPs). (a) MOPs facilitate the development of outcome indicators. Outcomes are the events, occurrences, or changes in conditions, behavior, or attitudes that indicate progress towards the substance abuse programmatic and functional goals and objectives. (b) This requires the establishment of a continuous data collection process of performance indicators into an Army authoritative database of record. (c) ARD is responsible for establishing and updating the process and procedures on developing and maintaining performance indicators for each FY. (3) Program evaluation is the systematic collection of information on the substance abuse functions inputs, activities, and outputs, as well as the program’s context and other key characteristics. It is a planned and periodic assessment of the substance abuse program using a common evaluation criteria of appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. It builds upon process evaluation and seeks to assess if medium-term outcomes and longer term impacts achieved the intended and unintended effects of these achievements assess approaches that worked well and those that did not and identify the reasons for successor failure and learning from both. A level of judgment will be applied in assessing the overall value of this effort. This task will occur at a minimum of at least once every three to four years. (4) Comprehensive assessment effort requires documentation of all program performance indicators into an ADOR. ADORs for maintaining the process and output indicators include the DAMIS, installation status report (ISR), and the Resource and Performance Report (RAPR). Annual aggregate program outcome performance measures will be maintained within the Strategic Management System and further refined down to the ACOM, ASCC, and DRU echelon. |