historically emerged as a response to changes
and breakdowns of past social structures that
routinely afforded individual, developmental and
social support mechanisms (e.g. extended family,
initiatory and mentoring systems implicit in vocational
pursuits, religious and pastoral groups etc).
Programming systematically evolved from general
support mechanisms (social/developmental) into
more specific and individual client-needs focus
(e.g. targeted issues like depression, parenting
skills, stress and time management etc).
Programming became more scientific/clinical rather
than social/developmental as limited resources
began to be postured at crisis/ambulance phases
as opposed to preventative junctures.
The explosion in research outcomes in areas of
human behaviour and development created the movement
to the 'professionalisation' of programming (i.e.
became more and more the province of educated
specialists rather than the function of community
leaders, elders or wise men).
Within the scientific disciplines themselves,
a movement occurred away from strict behavioural
approaches to what is generally known as 'cognitive-behavioural'
methods and even more recently into the areas
of "emotional processing"; (hence the
advent of the "emotional intelligence"
literature, recognising the three (3) core adaptive
human skills of monitoring, naming/communicating
and pro-socially processing of internal emotional
Most probably, concurrent with the advent of the
women's movement, gender issues in programming
approaches began to evolve; i.e. initially on
a platform of equity and social justice but more
recently (say last 10 years) based on an understanding
that the core adaptive processes were commonly
experienced, enacted and valued differentially
between males and females.
The more recent history of programming has demonstrated
the efficacy of gender-based design, targeted
content, delivery and evaluation methods that
appropriately match client needs with program
PBI recognises that otherwise
deserving programs go begging if explicit protocols
to protect their integrity are not in place or not
maintained. The history of great ideas that didn't
"get a gurnsey" or worthy initiatives that
became systematically watered down and finally ineffective;
is legend in the field of programming.
Credible programs invest
in protocols that enable the long-term tenure and
effectiveness of their operation. Unfortunately, the
passage of time can often witness the degeneration
of start-up enthusiasm, resources and expertise; creating
real questions about program effectiveness and deservedness
for funding etc. Simply collecting positive client
feedback (though important), is not enough to argue
the case for program survival. PBI acknowledges that
the technology (and often the will) associated with
program evaluation, is rarely held by actual program
deliverers or even administrators. Objective analysis
of a program's operation by an outside party is the
most defensible form of evaluation.
PBI offers such a service, that can be tailored to
client needs in terms of breadth, depth and reporting.
The following represents a "template" routinely
used by PBI to evaluate programs for clients. It is
offerred to particularly illustrate those areas and
issues that have been shown to relate not only to
program impact, but also to program survival.
To view another section of the Pacific Behaviour
website use the navigation on the left hand
side of the screen.
Are you having problems viewing this website?
Just click here
to lodge your problem.