|
Session Title: Collaborative, Participatory & Empowerment Evaluation TIG Business Meeting and Panel: How are Evaluation and Continuous Quality Improvement Capacities Built Using Getting to Outcomes (GTO)
|
|
Business Meeting with Panel Session 544 to be held in San Simeon A on Thursday, Nov 3, 6:10 PM to 7:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Collaborative, Participatory & Empowerment Evaluation TIG
|
| TIG Leader(s):
|
|
David Fetterman, Fetterman Associates, fettermanassociates@gmail.com
|
|
Liliana Rodriguez-Campos, University of South Florida, liliana@usf.edu
|
| Chair(s): |
| Abraham Wandersman, University of South Carolina, wandersman@sc.edu
|
| Abstract:
How are the capacities built by GTO®(1) related to performance? The goal of this panel is underscore the importance of evaluation capacity building among human service organizations. It is timely given the current economic climate, where more emphasis being placed on evaluation and more human service organizations are being asked to do evaluation and continuous quality improvement (CQI).
There will be a brief overview to GTO presented by Abe Wandersman and 3 brief presentations on using GTO in prevention and treatment programs (8 minutes each) and 8 minutes for the discussant Laura Leviton.
In each presentation, there will be 3-4 powerpoint slides. One slide on background of project, one on findings, and one on next steps/unanswered questions. This provides some evidence re: the premise of GTO in building capacity.
(1) Getting To Outcomes® and GTO® have been registered by the University of South Carolina and RAND.
|
|
The Getting to Outcomes ® - Continuous Quality Improvement: Intervention Development Project
|
| Sarah Hunter, RAND Corporation, shunter@rand.org
|
| Matthew Chinman, RAND Corporation, chinman@rand.org
|
| Patricia Ebener, RAND Corporation, patricia_ebener@rand.org
|
|
This presentation will describe an iterative participatory process used to develop the Getting To Outcomes (GTO) Continuous Quality Improvement manual for use in community service organizations. Using the GTO participatory evaluation framework, researchers worked closely with a community service organization to adapt existing CQI approaches for use in a substance abuse prevention and treatment setting. The CQI process was based on an empowerment evaluation approach where providers systematically assessed their own programs and developed CQI actions with guidance from CQI Experts/RAND researchers and support from organizational leadership. Program staff participated in the training and testing of the CQI tools and provided feedback on feasibility over a two-year period. The CQI tools that were modified over time based on program staff feedback will be illustrated. The presentation will also incorporate program staff's experiences including the resources needed to conduct CQI in these settings.
|
|
|
Supporting the Implementation of Positive Youth Development Programs Through Getting to Outcomes®
|
| Joie Acosta, RAND Corporation, shunter@rand.org
|
| Matthew Chinman, RAND Corporation, chinman@rand.org
|
|
Despite the spread of evidence-based prevention to support healthy youth development, communities still face difficulty in achieving outcomes because of limited capacity to implement "off the shelf" programs. This presentation will describe the structure and findings of a project that combines two complementary models to address this implementation challenge: Getting To Outcomes® (GTO) and Developmental Assets (Assets). GTO enhances local capacity for discrete prevention tasks; Assets supports community mobilization to promote positive youth development. The project is a randomized community trial comparing six prevention coalitions receiving a two-year intervention based on Assets-GTO (manuals, training, and ongoing technical assistance) with 6 similar coalitions who are not. Coalition surveys (about 54 members/coalition) and interviews with program staff (5 per coalition) were used to assess the adoption of Assets-GTO, and the impact on prevention capacity and performance. Findings from these instruments and their implications for conducting implementation research will be presented.
| |
|
Utilizing Getting to Outcomes® Within a Recovery-oriented System of Care
|
| Jonathan Scaccia, University of South Carolina, jonathan.p.scaccia@gmail.com
|
| Jennifer Castellow, University of South Carolina, castellj@email.sc.edu
|
| Isha Metzger, University of South Carolina, isha.metzger@gmail.com
|
| Andrea Lamont, University of South Carolina, alamont082@gmail.com
|
| Jason Katz, University of South Carolina, jaskatz@gmail.com
|
| Abraham Wandersman, University of South Carolina, wandersman@sc.edu
|
|
When developing and enhancing recovery-oriented programming, the Getting To Outcomes (GTO) ® framework (Chinman, Imm, and Wandersman, 2004) may be beneficial in improving the quality of services. GTO is well suited to help organizations develop organic recovery programming that is tailored to the strengths and needs of the individual, while still fitting within the capacities of the organization and the community. This overview will outline the methods by which GTO can be utilized to develop programming within a Recovery-Oriented System of Care (ROSC). The ROSC model is research-based, outcome-driven, and requires ongoing monitoring and feedback for systems improvement (Laudet and White, 2010). GTO meets these standards through systematically including the evidence base, matching these practices with current needs of the individual receiving services, and providing feedback and data to insure continuous quality improvement. The use of GTO to develop and administer treatment for pregnant, substance-abusing women will be described.
| |