Reporting a program evaluation: Needs, program plan, intervention, and decisions

The approach to intervention programs varies depending on the methodological perspective adopted. This means that health professionals lack clear guidelines regarding how best to proceed, and it hinders the accumulation of knowledge. The aim of this paper is to set out the essential and common aspects that should be included in any program evaluation report, thereby providing a useful guide for the professional regardless of the procedural approach used. Furthermore, the paper seeks to integrate the different methodologies and illustrate their complementarity, this being a key aspect in terms of real intervention contexts, which are constantly changing. The aspects to be included are presented in relation to the main stages of the evaluation process: needs, objectives and design (prior to the intervention), implementation (during the intervention), and outcomes (after the intervention). For each of these stages the paper describes the elements on which decisions should be based, highlighting the role of empirical evidence gathered through the application of instruments to defined samples and according to a given procedure.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 2016-2019: Sorted by MPO and RPA, 2015

Iowa’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has been developed in conformance with the guidelines prescribed by 23 U.S.C. and 49 U.S.C. The STIP is generated to provide the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration a listing of all projects that are candidates for federal aid from the FHWA and FTA for the four federal fiscal years (FFY) 2016-2019. The 2016-2019 STIP was approved by FHWA and FTA on September 29, 2015. Preceding the listings of federal-aid candidates are general comments concerning Iowa’s public participation process for selection of federal-aid projects and the basis for funding the proposed projects. Documents evidencing the Iowa Department of Transportation’s authority to act concerning matters related to transportation, federal-aid expenditures, and approvals of metropolitan planning organizations’ (MPOs) transportation improvements programs (TIPs) have been provided in past STIPs and can be provided again upon request.

Du traitement précoce des sujets à risque aux risques du traitement précoce. Le dilemme de la prévention des troubles psychotiques [From early treatment of psychosis risk to the risks of early intervention: the dilemma of psychosis prevention].

While the development of early psychosis intervention programs have improved outcome of such disorders, primary prevention strategies are still out of reach. The elaboration, over the last 15 years, of scales and criteria to identify populations at high risk for psychosis is a real progress, but their low specificity is still a major obstacle to their use outside of research projects. For this reason, even if "ultra high risk", subjects present with real psychiatric disorders and sometimes significant decrease in functioning level, the fact that only a small proportion will eventually develop full blown psychosis will probably lead to the rejection of a "psychosis risk syndrom" from the future DSM-V classification.

Brief alcohol intervention as pragmatic intervention: Who is voluntarily taking an offered intervention?

Brief alcohol interventions (BAI) have shown the potential to decrease problematic alcohol use among adolescents and young adults. Most of the BAI studies have been efficacy trials designed to achieve high internal validity but have raised questions regarding the feasibility of large-scale implementation. Providing interventions for those voluntarily wanting them might offer an alternative, and studies using this design would be more similar to effectiveness studies. The present research compares randomly selected 20-year-old men who took part in a scientific trial (efficacy) with those who voluntarily sought an intervention (effectiveness). Sampling took place during army recruitment procedures that are mandatory for all males in Switzerland. At-risk drinking (20+ drinks per week, or more than one risky drinking occasion of 6+ drinks per month) was determined a posteriori; there was no screening. There were a higher percentage of at-risk drinkers in the volunteer arm at baseline, but at-risk drinkers did not differ from those in the trial arm on any of the assessed alcohol measures. This suggests that offering BAI on a large-scale, voluntary basis may reach at-risk drinkers as effectively as do more scientifically oriented trials, without needing to adhere to screening and stringent research procedures. Nevertheless, BAI was more effective for at-risk drinkers who were invited for trial participation versus those who volunteered. This could be due to behavior that is already consolidated and is difficult to change. Lacking further modifications, real-world implementations of BAI for young men may be less effective than randomized controlled trials designed to test the efficacy of BAI.

Improvement in gross motor performance between 3 and 5 years of age.

This study examined gross motor performance of 101 typically developing children between 3 and 5 years of age (48 boys, 53 girls, M age = 3.9 yr., SD = 0.5). All children performed 7 different gross motor tasks which were rated on a 5-point scale. Age and sex were assessed by an ordinal-logistic model, and odds ratios were calculated for each task using age and sex as covariates. For standing on one leg, walking on a beam, hopping on one leg, running, and taking stairs, statistically significant age differences were found, while for rising and jumping down, none were apparent. Mean motor performance did not differ between boys and girls on the tasks. The older the children were, the better they performed on the tasks.

2006 Calendar Year Annual Report of the Watershed Improvement Review Board

The Board is authorized to request water quality improvement applications from soil and water conservation districts and local watershed improvement committees and award grants to these entities. These grants are issued from the Watershed Improvement Fund. During 2006, the Fund was allocated $5 million for state fiscal year 2007 for water quality improvements from the tobacco settlement trust fund. On September 20, 2006, the Board awarded grants to sixteen applicants. Total amount allocated to these projects was $4,915,066.

2007 Calendar Year Annual Report of the Watershed Improvement Review Board

The Board, codified in Chapter 466A, is an independent, self-governing body directed to improve the quality of water in the state. The Board is authorized to request water quality improvement applications from soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, cities, public water supply utilities, and county conservation boards and award grants to these entities. These grants are issued from the Watershed Improvement Fund. In 2007, the Fund was allocated $5 million for state fiscal year 2008 for water quality improvements from the tobacco settlement trust fund. On September 24. 2007, the Board awarded grants to ten applicants. Total amount allocated to these projects is $2.656.842. A second Request for applications is under way and will close February 22, 2008.

2008 Calendar Year Report of the Watershed Improvement Reviw Board

The Board, codified in Chapter 466A, is an independent, self-governing body directed to improve the quality of water in the state. The Board is authorized to request water quality improvement applications from soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, cities, public water supply utilities, and county conservation boards and award grants to these entities. These grants are issued from the Watershed Improvement Fund. In 2008, the Fund was allocated $5 million for state fiscal year 2009 for water quality improvements from the general fund. On February 22, 2008, the Board awarded grants from the SFY 2008 allocation from the Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund to seven applicants. Total amount allocated to these projects is $2,115,694. A Request For Applications was issued Last spring for the SFY 2009 appropriations. On September 12, the Board awarded grants to nine applicants. Total amount allocated to these projects is $3,513,531. A second Request for Applications is underway for the SFY 2009 allocation and will close January 30, 2009.

2009 Calendar Year Annual Report of the Watershed Improvement Review Board

The Board, codified in Chapter 466A, is an independent, self-governing body directed to award grants for water quality improvement and flood prevention in the state. The Board is authorized to request applications from soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, public water supply utilities, counties, county conservation boards and cities and award grants to these entities. These grants are issued from the Watershed Improvement Fund. Annual appropriations of $5 million plus interest earned on the Watershed Improvement Fund allowed the Board to issue two Request For Applications in 2009. On February 27, the Board awarded grants to seven applicants for a total of $2,366,861. On September 21, the Board awarded grants to thirteen applicants for a total of $5,120,832. In addition to providing environmental benefits, these implementation projects stimulate economic recovery and create jobs through the purchasing oflocal goods and services.

2010 Calendar Year Annual Report of the Watershed Improvement Review Board

The Board, codified in Chapter 466A, is an independent, self-governing body directed to award grants for water quality improvement and flood prevention in the state. The Board is authorized to request applications from soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, public water supply utilities, counties, county conservation boards and cities and award grants to these entities. These grants are issued from the Watershed Improvement Fund. Annual appropriations plus interest earned on the Watershed Improvement Fund allowed the Board to issue three Request For Applications in 2010. On February 19, the Board awarded grants to five applicants for a total of $1,647,600. On July 23, the Board awarded grants to five applicants for a total of $796,500. Finally, on November 5, the Board awarded grants to eight applicants for a total of $1,203,500.

2011 Calendar Year Annual Report of the Watershed Improvement Review Board

The Board, codified in Chapter 466A, is an independent, self-governing body directed to award grants for water quality improvement and flood prevention in the state. The Board is authorized to request applications from soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, public water supply utilities, counties, county conservation boards and cities and award grants to these entities. These grants are funded by the Watershed Improvement Fund. Although no appropriation was received in FY2012, returned funds from some prior years' grants plus interest earned on the Watershed Improvement Fund allowed the Board to issue one Request For Applications in 2011. On September 9, the Board awarded grants to eight applicants for a total of $1,506,309. In addition to providing environmental benefits, these implementation projects stimulate economic recovery, empower local groups to improve water quality and create jobs through the purchase oflocal goods and services.

2012 Calendar Year Annual Report of the Watershed Improvement Review Board

The Board, codified in Chapter 466A, is an independent, self-goveming body directed to award grants for water quality improvement and flood prevention in the state. The Board is authorized to request applications from soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, public water supply utilities, counties, county conservation boards and cities and award grants to these entities. These grants are funded by the Watershed Improvement Fund. Annual appropriations, funds from the Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties, canyover funds plus interest earned on the Watershed Improvement Fund allowed the Board to issue a Request For Applications from June 15 to July 27,2012. On August 17, the Board awarded grants to twelve applicants for a total of $946,952. In addition to providing environmental benefits, these implementation projects stimulate economic recovery and create jobs through the purchasing of local goods and services. A second Request For Applications was open from October 9 to December 14, 2012. Applications from this request will be reviewed in February 2013.

2013 Calendar Year Annual Report of the Watershed Improvement Review Board

The Watershed Improvement Board is an independent, self-governing body which awards grants for water quality improvement in the state. Eligible applicants include soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, public water supply utilities, counties, county conservation boards and cities. These grants are funded by the Watershed Improvement Fund. Funding for these grants comes from annual appropriations and funds from the Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. The Board awarded ten grants totalling $2,307,554 this year. In addition to providing environmental benefits, these implementation projects help stimulate economic activity and create jobs through the purchase of local goods and services. Additional grants will be awarded this spring.

2014 Calendar Year Annual Report of the Watershed Improvement Review Board

The Watershed Improvement Review Board is an independent, self-governing body which awards grants for water quality improvement in the state. Eligible applicants include soil and water conservation districts, local watershed improvement committees, public water supply utilities, counties, county conservation boards and cities. These grants are funded by the Watershed Improvement Fund. Funding for these grants comes from annual appropriations and funds from the Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund Penalties. The Board awarded six grants totalling $1,406,178 this year. In addition to providing environmental benefits, these implementation projects help stimulate economic activity and create jobs through the purchase of local goods and services. Additional grants will be awarded this spring.