Program Evaluation:

  1. Choose a completed evaluation; any kind, your choice. Determine the model used and identify in your mind the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation and the approach that was taken.

I had a great deal of difficulty tracking down an actual program evaluation to write anything about. It seems like an easy Google search, but in reality it was harder than that. However, I found one I thought was interesting.

This comes from the Native Addictions Council of Manitoba. (NACM) They have a variety of programs ranging from an addictions treatment home, Pritchard House, to women and youth substance addictions programs and gambling and outreach programs.

There are a wide variety of program evaluation models that could be used to analyze the efficacy of such programs. These evaluations could be summative or formative. Summative evaluations are those that typically come at the end of a particular program and “wrap-up” the program. The evaluation looks at whether or not the program met its targets or goals. Formative evaluation is processed based and helps guide a program towards its goals and aims. The goal is improvement or feedback on how the program is progressing.

A wide variety of models of evaluation could be employed.

The NACM program evaluation seems to be very cursory. It is one web page in length and there are essentially six questions that are asked of participants within the program. “Program evaluations are filled out by clients after completion of their programs”. (N.A.C.M) The model that seems to be used here is Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation Model. The questions asked of students deals with their reaction to the program, why they chose the program and how they would rate it. The evaluation seems to fall down on looking at behaviours and the results. A rating scale of how clients score their treatment program seems a little lacking in “punch”, if nothing else. As well, for the range of addictions treatments that NACM offers, their program evaluation seems to be sorely lacking. If you were donating money to their cause, I would expect to see more detailed program evaluations.

The model is effective in that people who participate in the programs have input into the evaluation of what is actually in their program and its perceived efficacy.

Now, it may be that in the context of this website, which reports on NACM’s activities and programs, the actual program evaluations are not exhaustively itemized. As well, their privacy policy may not allow complete program evaluations to be released in this sort of public forum. However, the privacy document is not accessible from the website to confirm this.

All in all, while the programs that NACM provides may be effective or valuable, their own release of program evaluation materials is sorely lacking in both scope and depth.


Clark, D. R. (2012, january 14). Kirkpatrick’s four-level training evaluation model. Retrieved from

N.A.C.M. (n.d.). Native alcoholism council of manitoba – program evaluations. Retrieved from http://www.