Introduction
In the fight for the management and eradication of youth drug abuse, programs that will be instrumental in the process demand proper and effective implementation. In order to systematically tackle the menace of drug use, the programs need to be effective and solid; capable of delivering on their objective and being sustainable. Therefore, a decent beginning will mean increased chances of succeeding in this war. However, to ensure that these programs are effective, monitoring and assessment methods are key. They enable realignment and improvement in areas that are not performing as required. Detailed thought is necessary to ensure that these programs start and progress as planned. A systematic analysis of funding, evaluation, and feedback for the proposed programs will increase chances of success.
Identify Sources of Funding For Your Program
The sustenance of any program over a long time requires a combination of non-financial resources from the initiative itself and the broader community at large. Internal resources include management and board members’ leadership and access to technical expertise of strong administrative and financial management systems. Critical resources from external sources include support from policy makers, the public or stakeholders who have access to technical expertise outside the program, and engagement of community-based organizations and programs, parents or community members. Funding is one of the fundamentals in the running of any program. Among resources needed for most sensitive matters, funds help in sustainability. They create a strong coalition that brings together a community in carrying out a comprehensive plan that effectively addresses relevant problems. Thus, it depends on more that the maintenance of adequate fiscal resources.
Secondly, a primary prevention campaign will reduce the need for treatment of drug abusers after a while. Thirdly, media campaign has great influence on the youth who are most affected and in this case are the target population. Media campaign can affirm the anti-drug attitudes of the youth who do not involve themselves in substance abuse than persuading experienced long-term users to change their behavior. There is also the involvement of other related programs with similar goals and objectives, for example, the Drug Strategy Community Initiative Funds. Using funding programs that support national and regional prevention and health promotion programs, discourages illicit drug use among the youth. It focuses on increasing awareness and understanding healthy lifestyle choices, highlighting drug abuse and its negative consequences, and increasing knowledge and skills capacity to avoid illicit drug use. It also increases community structures engagement, health networks and efforts of prevention to prevent illicit drug use among the youth. In addition, there is involvement of funding in support of projects aimed at preventing and reducing substance-related crimes in the population and communities. For instance, involving the national crime prevention center involves funding through reorienting funding from the Crime Preservation Action Fund. These projects target children and the youth at risk of substance abuse. Mills et al. (2014) emphasize on the indulgence of the youth in alcohol abuse, hence giving a need to fund programs to rescue the situation. In addition, other programs like the drug and organized crime awareness services support initiatives across borders. These initiatives increase awareness of the nature, extent and consequences of substance use and abuse that gets directly funded.
Determining the Criteria That Will Be Used For Evaluating Success of Our Program
The program’s success essentially relies on the participants involved. The number of strengths available is inadequate for providing sufficient guidance in an effort to reduce crime. The knowledge gap can be filled by restructuring the program in order to provide adequate controls for careful testing on the effectiveness of the program.
Using the number of active participants in the activities of the program may indicate the success of the program. The events and activities of the program are planned to run annually. Success of the program can get evaluated on the consistency of the smooth running of events of the programs as planned. In addition, by running the program throughout the year within the budget, gives an indication of success as it translates responsible personnel. Henggeler and Schoenwald (2011) explain that the evaluation of a success suggests no effects of uncertain and small treatment advantage. The program operates in reference to its goals. One of the program’s goals is preventing crime from re-occurring in the future. In this way, the ability to evaluate the program’s effectiveness at preventing crime translates to the success levels of the program. Crime prevention can be controlled by the program in relation to the number of criminal events, criminal offenders, the amount of harm prevented, and the number of victims repeatedly harmed. Also related are the reduction of risk factors for crime and increasing protective factors (Blum et al., 2014).
Determining the Data Collection Methods That Will Be Used To Determine the Success of Your Program
Collecting new data where needed data does not exist is one of the successes of the program. Collecting new data has distinct advantages as greater control can get achieved over previous measures used. As such, the reliability and validity of these data may get increased. In order to determine the best data in defining the success of the program, there should be an assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages of alternative approaches. New data can get collected through direct means that include direct observation, surveys, interviews and drawing information from administrative records. Direct observation has an advantage in that it provides opportunities of learning in details how the program works, its existing context and its various consequences. Therefore, it gives room for learning, hence determining the success of the program.
When evaluating the program, there could be forms of recording observation designed for the purpose of precise measurement and high reliability. In so doing, uniformity in procedures gets specified for purposes of counting events. Interviews get complemented with direct observations during visits to the sites that occur separately. In order to explain the success of the program, the interviews are made unstructured and open-ended. In some cases, the evaluation calls for focused data collection; a questionnaire can get developed. In this manner, it increases the reliability of the data as respondents answer uniformly phrased questions. Data collection from administration records can get used for programs operating within the criminal justice system (Howard, 2012). Focus groups can operate like data collection methods to determine the success of the program. The group can be guided by group discussions from similar backgrounds and facilitated by a moderator from the program. The facilitator guides the group to higher levels and depths on key issues. The focus group participants can be the youths and parents. Focus groups are a good way to pilot test strategies in the program before it spends more money in development.
Describe the Way to Collect and Respond to Feedback and Implementation Concerns
The data collection methods should be carefully tested as they should be valid and as reliable as possible. Clients should be ready for the data collection process and made aware of the data to get collected with their confidentiality assured. There are several approaches used for data collection. They include post-only measures where data gets collected once; at the end of the program. Secondly, pre/post measures where data gets collected twice. These are at the beginning and the end of the program. Thirdly, there is time series approach where data is collected several times during the ongoing program, and there is a follow-up. The fourth method entails measures with a comparison group. In this approach, the data is collected from the two groups; one group receives the intervention and the other does not. The approach is useful in demonstrating success of the intervention. Lastly, there are measures with a comparative standard approach. Here, data gets collected at the end of the program and compared with a standard.
Finding steadfast and trustworthy people in collecting and managing data is crucial. In addition to all this, a clear communication with the program staff in informing them on the process is necessary; clarification is vital. Advance advice to the clients increases their willingness to participate during implementation. In responding to feedback, there are a number of strategies used. First, strategy is a double entry, entailing setting up a system for data collection twice while comparing present discrepancies. Second is spot-checking. It entails the review of a random data sample and comparing it to the source document for other anomalies. After its discrepancies get discovered, the first thing is to identify patterns. Third, is sorting data to find missing, high and low values. It can happen by a single formulae or sorting functions. Fourth strategy is the use of automation such as drop down menus. Clients’ feedback yields positivity in implementation (Reese, Toland, Slone, Norsworthy, & Larry, 2010). They provide a standard way of reporting information, thus making it easier when sorting and analyzing data. Finally, there is discussing data discrepancies with the organization. It only applies if, after the implementation of these mechanisms, the discrepancies remain unexplained necessitating the need for clarification.
In order to implement the needed response of the client, interpretation of highlighted issues is important. It helps in attaching meaning to the analyzed data and putting the results in context drawing conclusions (Lambert, & Shimokawa, 2011). So that the implementation of the concerns of the respondents can occur, the program should establish cover budgets for the costs such as for the data collection instruments and reports from all centers. In addition, the budget should consider costs within the program concerning communication costs of telephone calls and postage. Other costs include incentive and rewards to individuals who turned positive to the anti-drug test as motivation to continue influencing the other members of the society to reduce and cease drug and substance abuse. Finally, processing data and reaching the need of the clients for the purpose of implementation may need funds hence the need for expanding the budget.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the use of anti-drug program serves the community and the affected persons of substance abuse to change their life trends. Changing their way of living involves reduction of substance usage and involvement in its activities. A follow up on the program’s activities helps them make a turnover in living. Resulting in less involvement in crime cases related to drug and substance abuse and becoming important people in the societies.
References
Blum, K., Han, D., Femino, J., Smith, D. E., Saunders, S., Simpatico, T& Gold, M. S. (2014, September 23). Systematic Evaluation of “Compliance” to Prescribed Treatment Medications and “Abstinence” from Psychoactive Drug Abuse in Chemical Dependence Programs: Data from the Comprehensive Analysis of Reported Drugs. PloS one, 9(9), e104275. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0104275&representation=PDF
Henggeler, S. W., & Schoenwald, S. K. (2011). Evidence-Based Interventions for Juvenile Offenders and Juvenile Justice Policies that Support Them. Social Policy Report, 25(1). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED519241.pdf
Howard, E. (2012, February). Statewide Implementation of Child and Family Evidence-Based Practices: Challenges and Promising Practices. Retrieved from http://tapartnership.org/enterprise/docs/Evidence-Based_Practice_Brief_Final_03022012.pdf
Lambert, M. J., & Shimokawa, K. (2011). Collecting Client Feedback. In J. C. Norcross (Ed.), Psychotherapy Relationships That Work (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Mills, B. A., Caetano, R., & Vaeth, P. (2014). Cross‐Border Policy Effects on Alcohol Outcomes: Drinking Without Thinking on the US–Mexico Border?. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. doi: 10.1111/acer.12548.
Reese, R. J., Toland, M. D., Slone, N. C., Norsworthy, & Larry, A. (2010). Effect of client feedback on couple psychotherapy outcomes. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47(4), 616-630.
