Principles & Practice of Health Evangelism
Chapter 23
Proposed Audit Tool
Textbook pages 254-255
Linked below is a proposed audit tool that could be used to evaluate programs claiming to be health evangelism programs and are seeking recognition and approval by the church or some organizational entity that assumes the prerogative to evaluate health evangelism programs. This tool should not be sent directly to the program author(s) or owner(s) for completion.
Ideally, two evaluators should visit the program’s author or the corporate headquarters and conduct interviews to obtain the needed information. A third option would be for an evaluator to attend and audit a program directly in some location as the program was being conducted.
For the sake of fairness and transparency, the same audit tool should be used to evaluate every health evangelism program being appraised. In this way each program will be judged using the same standards as every other program
Ideally, two evaluators should visit the program’s author or the corporate headquarters and conduct interviews to obtain the needed information. A third option would be for an evaluator to attend and audit a program directly in some location as the program was being conducted.
For the sake of fairness and transparency, the same audit tool should be used to evaluate every health evangelism program being appraised. In this way each program will be judged using the same standards as every other program
Download & Print PDF
Ideally, the reviewing organization would have representatives from the Health Ministry department of church administration at some level, medical experts, psychologists, educators, evangelists, and statisticians. It would be advisable to also include authors of one or more health evangelism programs on the review committee.
Once the evaluation tool has been completed, the results should be circulated to all the members of the reviewing organization. There should be a deadline for responses. A vote should be taken to confirm the final evaluation and ranking of a program. Before the results are made known publicly, the program owner or author should be notified of the results of the audit and given time to respond:
Once the evaluation tool has been completed, the results should be circulated to all the members of the reviewing organization. There should be a deadline for responses. A vote should be taken to confirm the final evaluation and ranking of a program. Before the results are made known publicly, the program owner or author should be notified of the results of the audit and given time to respond:
- Withdraw - Requests to opt out of the evaluation process would be honored, but these programs should receive the "Not Recommended at this time" label.
- Modify - The author/owner could respond by accepting the evaluation results and request an opportunity to modify the program with the intention to improve the health and/or evangelistic elements for re-evaluation before a final ranking is determined.
- Appeal - If the author/owner believes the evaluation is incorrect, an appeal process could be initiated. Any appeal should be handled by at least two of the review committee members who were not involved in the original evaluation. If there is to be a change in the original evaluation, it should be discussed and voted on by the entire review committee.
The goal would be to systematically evaluate all the health programs that are currently being used or promoted among Seventh-day Adventist churches. This survey would be conducted by distributing the standardized audit tool (Program Evaluation Form linked above) to each of the health programs that are used by churches. If a program failed to respond to the request for information, a site visit could be conducted to corporate headquarters or to a locally conducted program to obtain information regarding the program
Once this evaluation has occurred and an analysis has been performed, a ranking can be developed. The detailed analysis of each program should be made available to churches on request, but a simple ranking system could be used. This simple ranking of programs should be published so that churches that are considering conducting health evangelism can make a more informed decision about what kind of programs should be selected for their local church. An example of a simplified ranking system is presented here:
Final General Ranking Categories:
This process of evaluation and ranking should be performed regularly on an annual or biannual basis. Some programs will be modified by their authors/owners to better fit a more ideal health evangelism model, and this should be recognized by a change in the ranking of these upgraded programs. New programs will be designed, tested, and deployed. These should be promptly evaluated as they become available. Churches should be encouraged to conduct health evangelism programs that have been optimized for their evangelistic impact.
Once this evaluation has occurred and an analysis has been performed, a ranking can be developed. The detailed analysis of each program should be made available to churches on request, but a simple ranking system could be used. This simple ranking of programs should be published so that churches that are considering conducting health evangelism can make a more informed decision about what kind of programs should be selected for their local church. An example of a simplified ranking system is presented here:
Final General Ranking Categories:
- Excellent – Incorporates all recommended elements that promote evangelism
- Acceptable – Incorporates most recommended elements.
- Primarily Secular – Contains excellent information but minimal evangelistic elements
- Not Recommended – Not good science and/or no evangelistic elements
This process of evaluation and ranking should be performed regularly on an annual or biannual basis. Some programs will be modified by their authors/owners to better fit a more ideal health evangelism model, and this should be recognized by a change in the ranking of these upgraded programs. New programs will be designed, tested, and deployed. These should be promptly evaluated as they become available. Churches should be encouraged to conduct health evangelism programs that have been optimized for their evangelistic impact.
This proposed process for evaluating the quality of health evangelism does not exist at the present time. There should be a sponsoring organization. This might be a branch of the church administrative structure, a university, an independent organization that is currently a member of the Adventist-laymen’s Services & Industries (ASI) organization, or a new entity that understands and is dedicated to the process of developing meaningful health evangelism.
Refer to Appendix A: Essential Elements in Health Evangelism for basic guidelines in program development.