Date post: | 17-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | liliana-tucker |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
What Do Programs Want?What Do Programs Want?
Jeanette Treiber, PhDProject DirectorCenter for Program Evaluation and ResearchUC Davis School of Medicine
Objective
Determine local agencies’ evaluation capacity building needs
Background
California Department of Public Health (CDPH)’s Tobacco Control Program is carried out by
61 Public Health Departments Approximately 40 Competetive Grantees
More Background CDPH Strategy
Norm Change Community base Community
Assessments 3yr work plans Evaluation
Evaluation ComponentsLocal Program Evaluation requirements
Comprehensive Evaluation Plan Process and Outcome Evaluation Internal or external evaluators Progress Reports Final Evaluation Reports
Tobacco Control Evaluation Center (TCEC)
TCEC provides Evaluation Capacity Building services to California TC programs through:
TATrainingToolsFER scoring and feedback
Rationale for TCEC Services“…pressures have been accompanied by
increasing awareness (and often frustration) on the part of funders as they confront the limited ability of the organizations they fund to meet the challenge of evaluating programs in ways that are likely to yield either genuine outcome-oriented accountability or useful information for formative improvement programs” Stevenson et.al. 2002
Evaluation Capacity Building Observed need and response in past
decade Various approaches to CB Various definitions Various approaches to measuring effect of CB Still little research
Method
1. A 21 item electronic survey (using the online service surveymonkey.com) to a list of 170 project directors and evaluators.
2. Analysis of access database for technical assistance from 2004 to 2009 (approx. 4.5 yrs)
Results (survey)Need for training or materials High or
Moderate Need
Using culturally competent evaluation methods ……………….79.4 %
Writing evaluation plans ……………………………………….59.9 %
Adapting/developing data collection instruments ……………...57.1 %
Interpreting evaluation results…………………………………..54.1 %
As a reference during evaluation activities…………...................51.5 %
Writing evaluation reports……………………………………….50 %
Collecting evaluation data……………………………………….42.9 %
Projected Use of TCEC (survey)
Projected use Response Percent
Finding, developing, or adapting data collection Instruments………………………………………..68.6
Writing an evaluation plan ……………………….57.1
As a reference during evaluation activities ………………………………48.6
To build overall evaluation capacity of the project …………………………….42.9
Preferred Format (survey)
Webinar 68 %
“How-to” evaluation guides on website
57.1%
Individual consultation by phone or e-mail
45.7%
Website strategy exchange 42.9%
Requests for Assistance (TA Log)
Total number of TA requests between 11/2/04 and 7/16/09
512Average: 11 requests/month
Up to 27 requests/agency total
Main Request types (TA Log)
Type of requests
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Plans tools Analysis Other
Type of Data Collection Instrument
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Key informantInterviews
Surveys Observation tools
39
189
44
TA DemandNumber of projects that have requested TA
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
LLA Compet
Total number ofprojects
Total number ofprojectsrequesting TA
(79%)
(71%)
FER Score and TA requestsFinal Evaluation report scores for Local Lead
Agencies were correlated with frequency of TA request.
No statistically significant correlation was found.
Summary/Conclusion Majority of local health departments AND
community organizations in CA TC require evaluation assistance
Greatest need is with DCIs, developing Eval plans, and help conducting evaluation with diverse populations.
Most DCI dev. need is with surveys Webinars are the most desired mode of
training delivery Individual assistance requests vary greatly
in frequency, scope, and content
Limitations Response rate to survey was only 20% TA assistance was not consistently entered
into log in the same manner Requests for TA are somewhat dependent
on marketing of TA TCEC team has changed personnel
throughout the 4.5 years
What do Programs Want?
•Flexible, Varied Evaluation Assistance;
•Convenient Delivery
ReferencesCalifornia Department of Public Health Services,
Tobacco Control Program. http://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/tobacco/Pages/default.aspx
Innovation Network – Transforming Evaluation for Social Change. http://www.innonet.org/
Preskill, Hallie. (2005). Building Evaluation Capacity. 72 Activities for Teaching and Training. Thousand Oaks (Sage).
More ResourcesStevenson, John, Paul Florin, Dana Scott Mills, and
Marco Andrade. (2002). Building Evaluation Capacity in Human Service Organizations: A Case Study. Evaluation and Program Planning 25, 233-243.
Tobacco Control Evaluation Center (TCEC). Center for Program Evaluation and Research, UC Davis. http://programeval.ucdavis.edu
University of Wisconsin Extension. Program Development and Evaluation. http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/index.html
ContactJeanette Treiber, PhDProject DirectorCenter for Program Evaluation and ResearchTobacco Control Evaluation CenterUC Davis School of Medicine
[email protected]://programeval.ucdavis.edu1616 Da Vinci CourtDavis, CA 95618