Brief Summary of Health Promotion Plan
The chosen health promotion plan is the Nebraska Division of Behavioral Health (DBH). This program and health plan are geared towards the development of activities that are meant to improve the quality behavioral health practices, as well as the related services to ensure wellness for all the people in the society (Department of Health and Human Services Nebraska, n.d.). While the program is not specifically tailed for women, it is aligned towards promoting positive health for all individuals with women included. In effect, the program oversees and coordinates the public health, social activities of the state to address both treatment and prevention of substance abuse programs, mental health problems, and gambling. Essentially, the services of DBH are not only limited to the Nebraska region but are meant to be dispersed all over the various parts, and work with different communities to ensure better capacity and planning in areas where substance abuse and mental health programs are just emerging (Department of Health and Human Services Nebraska, n.d.).
Evaluation of the Plan
The assessment of the health promotion program is to be conducted on a participatory level. Participatory evaluation involves the involvement of key community stakeholders in the development phase, in the implementation of the plan and the assessment process, as a means of fostering local capacity. In this case, therefore, the program will provide the members of the community prevention staff with the required skills to carry out effective plan evaluations. While the role of the staff is to offer training, mentoring, negotiations, and methodologies, the grantees, will take part in conducting the assessment exercise. Notably, participatory evaluation mandates that there is the active involvement of all the community members such as the program directors, coalition members, and the coordinators. This way, the people that will be taking part in the evaluation exercise will share a deep commitment towards the program; enhance their assessment skills and likelihood that the information gathered will be applied in enforcing positive change to the program. However, the evaluation will not only be done at the local level but also administered at the state level. Mostly, the strategic planning process has set a precedence through which the program can identify key priorities, their goals as well as their objectives for the development of the program at the state level. To ensure that all these priorities are attained as per the strategic planning process, the evaluation process will adopt both a process and outcome effect. Thus, the program will get an external evaluator who will be responsible for creating an evaluation plan consisting of criteria, measures, and various benchmarks. Further, the program will ensure to provide the evaluator with the relevant progress information that will be compiled to constitute an annual report, through which the appraiser will state both accomplishments and areas for further improvement.
Action Plan Implemented
- The first action plan is to improve the health and wellness of the community. One of the ways that the program seeks to develop communal health is through ensuring sustainability, treatment, and other recovery services.
- The second action plan is to improve the system of care in the community that can offer improvement across their lifespan (New York State Prevention Agenda, 2012).
- The third action plan is to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of substance abuse prevention programs, the treatment and recovery measures that are facilitated through research-based approaches
The project’s Cost-Effectiveness
Policymakers and other stakeholders can apply the cost-benefit analysis of their program to determine the level of its effectiveness. One research has established that the costs of substance abuse among people in the nation in 1999 were about $510.8 billion (Miller & Hendrie, 2008). Notably, the cost of drug addiction of alcohol-related uses amounted to about $191.6 billion, while the use of tobacco amounted to costs of about $167.8 billion. The use of other drugs costs the nation about $151.4 billion (Miller & Hendrie, 2008). In effect, substance abuse is one of the most expensive health problems that the country is facing. It is also estimated that substance abuse results in a myriad of health issues, accounting for about 33 diseases and conditions; with alcohol being the leading cause of disease factors, tobacco being the sixth, and problems related to drug disorders ranking as seventh (Miller & Hendrie, 2008). In effect, this program that is tailor-made to reduce the cases of substance abuse by acting as a preventive measure is effective in reducing these costs. One survey by Miller and Hendrie (2008) has shown that should drug prevention programs be implemented nationwide, then the country is bound to benefit by making a lot of health savings through costs that are spent on treating the associated ailments. In fact, the cost-effective nature of this program is that it reduces the onset of health problems later in their lives. A sample of health promotion plan programs for youths showed that the annual amounts spent on a single person to ensure proper health cost about $220, which is inclusive of the instructional materials and training of the caregivers. Further, it is estimated that these programs should they be successfully be implanted all over the nation would earn savings of about $18 per $1 invested.
Notably, the implementation of such programs to prevent substance abuse among women would have the following fiscal impact on the government. First, they would save both the state and the government an estimated amount of $1.3 billion, including $1.05 billion that would have been spent on education. Another cost-saving benefit that would accrue to the government is that it would increase the productivity of these populations valued at about $33.5 billion and promote preservation of better quality of life amounting to about $65 billion
Project’ Practical Use and Sustainability
One of the ways that the program can become sustainable to the needs of the people is through carrying out research and surveys to understand what the people require. Among one the ways that the project has done so is through forming civic partnerships that can guide the community on sustainable training (CDC health Communities Program, 2003). Further, the program also applies research and practice to ensure effective local development policy, through which the practitioners would be able to achieve improvements in the long term and acquire sustainable change (County of Los Angeles Department of Health, 2011).
Project’s Financial Implications
Substance abuse programs rely on three areas of funding. These are federal grants, reimbursement through Medicaid, and general funds from the state. However, there are some hidden costs involved in the facilitation of these funds. For instance, for every grant required by the program, the organization needs to incur maintenance costs, administration, and various areas that require meeting funders report requirements (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2008). Thus, there is a need to implement strategic approaches that consider the burden of grant administration on the plan’s budget. Further, the program requires a client funding strategy that should connect customers with the various services they need to attain both recovery and self-sufficiency. Further, the program needs to consider offering their clients child care, housing, transport, and medical care besides treatment for substance abuse before they can regain their ground and fend for themselves (Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, 2008).
Summary and Expectations
Substance abuse causes a range of adverse implications. To ensure minimal consumption of these drugs and their related effects, a comprehensive prevention program must be developed. Ideally, no single intervention can tackle the problem of substance abuse. Thus, there is a need to select the most feasible, culturally and demographically appropriate means through which the problem can be addressed. One basic expectation is to ensure that the chosen program applies a couple of interventions. Secondly, policymakers must select a program that offers a possible return on investments, ensure that there are politically feasible, are appropriate, or the selected target populations can consider the local priorities. Notably, the DBH program is intended for the Nebraska area, though the policies apply to everyone suffering from substance abuse problems. In effect, the program can be tailored and adapted to offer preventive health care for women exposed to drug addiction, as well as offer treatment for the affected. Ideally, the action plans are ideal for reducing the incidence of substance abuse among these populations, owing to the cost-benefits analysis to be derived from the program. As it is, with the right funding and appropriate fund management strategies, the plan is highly cost-effective than dealing with the associated costs of substance abuse.
CDC Health Communities Program. (2003). A sustainability planning guide for healthy communities. Web.
Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. (2008). Integrating substance abuse treatment and vocational services: Chapter 6 –Funding and policy issues. Web.
County of Los Angeles Department of Health. (2011). Substance abuse prevention program and control strategic plan 2011-2016. Web.
Department of Health and Human Services Nebraska. (n.d.). Five-year prevention statewide strategic plan. Web.
Miller, T., & Hendrie, D. (2008). Substance abuse prevention dollars and cents: a cost-benefit analysis. Rockville, MD: Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
New York State Prevention Agenda. (2012). Promote mental health and prevent substance abuse action plan. Web.