The purpose of this internal evaluation was to document how CORES program works and to establish if the program has been successful and, if so, why. As a result of the evaluation further questions arose as to how the program could best be extended to other communities in Australia.

While an internal evaluation does not always have the strength of an external evaluation, it does, however, provide valuable information about the program which can be used by the organization in going forward.
There are three main components of the evaluation:

1. A short history of the program.
   
   
2. How the program works.
   
   
3. Is the program successful and, if so, why.

The investigation took a period of six weeks and involved attending the Team Leader Training, the One Day course, interviewing participants from regions where the CORES program has been delivered and a review of evaluation sheets from course participants.

A detailed analysis of each component is included later in this report, but a summary of the main findings of the evaluation are:

How the program works:

From the evidence evaluated, the program works in three ways:

1. It engages people in the community no matter what their backgrounds may be and presents material in a simple to understand format.
   
   
2. The program provides those in the community with a pathway to involvement in suicide prevention and skills them in being able to take this to the remainder of the community.
   
   
3. It empowers local communities to recognize the signs of suicide and intervene before a crisis occurs and the courage to refer onto appropriate services.

Is the program successful and, if so, why:

The basis upon which the program is deemed as successful comprises four criteria:

a) Has it lead to a reduction or elimination of suicide in the regions it has been delivered?

b) Has it continued, after the initial 12 months, within communities to good effect?

c) What testimonials have been received about the program?

d) How has the program been publicly recognized?

The evaluation establishes that the program is successful in each of the criteria
.
From the evidence evaluated, the program is successful for four reasons:

1. It is a community based ‘train the trainer’ program which allows the local community to take charge of presenting the training to their own community and therefore a greater sense of ownership by the community.
   
   
2. The twelve months is an effective period which gives sufficient time for the local community to both understand and take full advantage of the program.
   
   
3. The program does not require detailed knowledge or any skills which people do not already have and is at the level where people feel comfortable about using their new skill.
   
   
4. The program serves as a link between a social problem and specialized services available within, and beyond, a community. Significantly, the program does not impinge upon the practices of specialized services but leads individuals to them.

Other factors considered in the evaluation:

Given the success of the program, three further areas were investigated as part of the evaluation. These were:

1. What is the best model for delivery
   
   
2. What funding is available
   
   
3. Finding a champion

Details of these are contained within the evaluation and serve to give the organization a method of going forward with the program. Recommendations are made within the report on actions required in specific areas.

Conclusion:

Over the six week period of the evaluation, it became evident that the underlying basis of the program (community based) and the simplicity of the course, makes it easy for people to acquire skills necessary to proactively address the problem of suicide within their community. The emphasis of the program is on rural communities throughout Australia and addressing the issue through the strengths that rural communities have.
 
To date, over 530 people have been directly involved in the CORES program or have attended the course on suicide intervention.

Other programs in the area of suicide prevention and intervention were not compared to CORESin this evaluation. However, it is noted that none of these other programs provide for either a train the trainer or community based response, and as one participant has commented in regards to another method  of addressing suicide,

“To me it was cold and clinical and too rushed. Most participants at our venue didn't feel comfortable or confident afterwards. The CORESprogram was much better, being on a practical basis with real life scenarios.”

And finally, another comment made by a participant of the CORES program stated;

“The problem has been - What does the community do when the chairs are packed up in the hall and it is empty? Who do they turn to when problems arise?”

This evaluation concludes that the CORESprogram addresses this issue.

MONIQUE ROSCHER, B.A.,Dip.Ed
Program Evaluator