|
Capacity Factors Influencing Evaluation Scope Among Prevention Coalitions
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Julianne Manchester,
The Ohio State University,
manchester.12@osu.edu
|
| James W Altschuld,
The Ohio State University,
altschuld.1@osu.edu
|
| Abstract:
Community coalitions are collectives (education, law enforcement, schools, and other sectors) engaged in needs assessment, resource identification, action planning, program implementation and evaluation to reduce and/or prevent substance abuse among youth and adults. Findings will be presented from a study that investigated the influence of finances, multiple sector representation, and the relations among those sectors on the scope of coalition evaluation plans. Coalitions should measure combinations of process (number of deliverables), intermediate (self report substance use questionnaires) and outcome indicators (public records such as arrests) to be accountable to funders and community stakeholders. The study shows that evaluation plans are primarily affected by funding level. The nature and number of involved community sectors and internal relationships that occur among members appear to be important but secondary to evaluation processes.
|
|
Safe Schools/Healthy Students Project Directors' Perspectives on Evaluation and Evaluators
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Jenifer Cartland,
Childrens' Memorial Hospital, Chicago,
jcartland@childrensmemorial.org
|
| Holly Ruch-Ross,
Independent Consultant,
hruchross@aol.com
|
| Maryann Mason,
Children's Memorial Hospital, Chicago,
mmason@childrensmemorial.org
|
| William Donohue,
Michigan State University,
donohue@msu.edu
|
| Abstract:
This paper reports preliminary findings on the perspective on and experience with evaluation for SS/HS project directors from a larger study which surveyed and interviewed 20 evaluator-project director pairs. The sample size is small, but results are instructive in terms of the challenges and opportunities for evaluators in developing working relationships with program leaders. There appears to be a gap in education and experience between evaluators and project directors, with the evaluators, on average, being more highly educated and experienced than their program peers. The two groups also deal with very different work environments (public schools for project directors; universities and consulting firms for evaluators). While there is broad agreement between project directors and evaluators about many particular aspects of evaluation, there is some difference in perception about the broader goals of evaluation. These differences appear to be related to expectations, evaluator style, and project stage.
|
|
Evaluating School-based Tobacco Prevention Initiatives: Challenges and Strategies
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Patricia Lauer,
Rocky Mountain Center for Health Promotion and Education,
patl@rmc.org
|
| Rebecca Van Buhler,
Rocky Mountain Center for Health Promotion and Education,
beckyvb@rmc.org
|
| Abstract:
In recent years, many states have used revenues from tobacco taxes to fund various types of tobacco prevention efforts. This paper addresses challenges and strategies for evaluating multi-site school-based tobacco prevention initiatives. A non-profit organization had state funding to administer mini-grants to over 50 schools and 15 districts to conduct tobacco prevention activities and programs. Evaluation challenges occurred at two levels of inquiry: (1) processes and outcomes of grantees' programs, and (2) influences of technical assistance and training on grantees' capacities to implement tobacco prevention efforts. Evaluation strategies included providing evaluation guidelines and tools to grantees and collecting data from multiple sources in multiple formats.
|
|
Ready, Set, ACTION: Evaluating the Multi-site Effectiveness Study of the Adolescent Cessation of Tobacco: Independent of Nicotine (ACTION) Adolescent Tobacco Cessation Program in Tobacco-growing Communities
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Laurie Stockton,
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation,
lstockton@pire.org
|
| Al Stein-Seroussi,
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation,
stein@pire.org
|
| Paul Brodish,
Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation,
pbrodish@pire.org
|
| Abstract:
The Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation used an experimental design to evaluate the relative effects of two tobacco cessation initiatives on tobacco-using high school youth in fourteen tobacco producing communities in Kentucky, North Carolina, and Ohio. Schools were randomly assigned to either receive the experimental condition or the comparison video condition. The primary outcome measures were youths' bio-chemically confirmed 3-day abstinence and self-reported abstinence from tobacco use (up to 30 days) at three data collection points: baseline, post-test, and three-month follow-up. Hierarchical linear modeling is being used to test for differences in abstinence from tobacco use between the experimental and comparison groups, while controlling for the individual differences that existed prior to the intervention and intracluster correlations for the nested conditions. Analyses are currently underway to examine differences between baseline and post-test. The results for the three month follow-up data are forthcoming and will be available by June 2007.
|
|
Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in the Evaluation of Health Prevention Programs Targeting Hard-to-reach Populations
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Violeta Dominguez,
University of Arizona,
violetdl@email.arizona.edu
|
| Abstract:
As part of the evaluation of a statewide tobacco control program a study was designed to gather data about service coverage, awareness, and utilization from a hard-to-reach, high- risk population. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with low-income clients, health care providers, and staff at community health centers. Further, survey data were collected from the Medicaid health plans serving this population. This paper will present results from an analysis that used qualitative and quantitative methods in synergy and compared information gathered from different types of respondents. This evaluation highlights areas of convergence and discrepancies among these data sources and how they can help inform interventions. It also provides important suggestions for potential collaborations between different agencies serving the same target population.
|
| | | | |