Nowadays, there are various social programs targeted at improving the local or global situation in communities. It is crucial to not only draft a program but also to measure its results to find out whether it helps to reach the initial goals. This process is usually referred to as the program evaluation or the outcome assessment (Babbie, 2016, p. 364). There are three types of evaluation, which are the outcome-focused, the empowerment, and the outcome-focused empowerment ones (Yuen, Terao, & Schmidt, 2013). While all these methods have their benefits and limitations, the outcome-focused approach has been taken for the study described in this paper.
Recovery of Public Works in Malawi
Background
A recent study has been conducted in the state of Malawi in Africa, the primary focus of which is the so-called recovery public works program (Khembo & Chapman, 2017). The recovery public works program (or RPW) was introduced in the country in the 1990s and aimed to provide short-term employment in some of the most disadvantaged regions of the state. This country is one of the poorest in the world, and such an initiative could potentially improve its economic situation in the field of unemployment and economic instability.
Most of the work provided includes positions in the agricultural and the construction sector. The program typically breaks down into two seasons, each taking half a year. The predicted yearly income of each person is evaluated as a substantial one, being around 13 percent of the local rate per capita. The primary goals of the program are seen in ensuring food security, financial stability, and household savings, as well as other community benefits.
Evaluation
The outcome-focused approach was the most beneficial method of evaluation in this case. It is reasoned by the social conditions in Malawi. The majority of the population that is engaged in the program does not have sufficient knowledge in economics to evaluate the outcomes of this initiative accurately. Besides, this is not the governmental research, and since the state’s administration is the head of the program, there could have been some bias from its side to cover the possible mistakes of the officials. That is why the study done by side researchers would be the best solution in this case.
Some of the results offered by the article include the inability of the RPW to improve the situation within the poor households sufficiently, thus underlining the relative failure of the program. The evaluation of food support has been the primary concern. The article shows that, although the PWP has allowed the participants to buy more food, this has not resulted in the overall increase in the number of meals per day. This value has to be measured through the outcome-focused evaluation for the reasons stated above. Firstly, citizens may know how much food they were able to receive as a result. However, the data for the whole community must include the work of side researchers to get the overall picture. Secondly, the government could potentially be providing inaccurate results if it is receiving financing for the program. The cases of corruption are common in Malawi, and the country’s administration could be interested in hiding the real outcomes.
Conclusion
The outcome-focused type of evaluation is the best method used to measure the success of the PWP program in Malawi. The lack of economic literacy among the studied community and the possible bias of the country’s government requires the side researchers to conduct the review of the program. If the local community was more aware of the processes they are engaged in, it could be possible to implement the outcome-focused empowerment evaluation.
References
Babbie, E. R. (2016). The basics of social research. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Khembo, F., & Chapman, S. (2017). A formative evaluation of the recovery public works programme in Blantyre City, Malawi. Evaluation and Program Planning, 61, 8-21. Web.
Yuen, F. K. O., Terao, K. L., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). Effective grant writing and program evaluation for human service professionals. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.