Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

More documents

Recommendations

Info

with research standards of internal and external validity, and designed to generate facts, remain value-free, and focus on specific variables Research establishes a time sequence and control for potential confounding variables Often, the research is widely disseminated Evaluation, in contrast, may or may not contribute to generalizable knowledge The primary purposes of an evaluation are to assess the processes and outcomes of a specific initiative and to facilitate ongoing program management Evaluation of a program usually includes multiple measures that are informed by the contributions and perspectives of diverse stakeholders Evaluation can be classified into five types by intended use: formative, process, summative, outcome, and impact Formative evaluation provides information to guide program improvement, whereas process evaluation determines whether a program is delivered as intended to the targeted recipients (Rossi et al , 2004) Formative and process evaluations are appropriate to conduct during the implementation of a program Summative evaluation informs judgments about whether the program worked (i e , whether the goals and objectives were met) and requires making explicit the criteria and evidence being used to make “summary” judgments Outcome evaluation focuses on the observable conditions of a specific population, organizational attribute, or social condition that a program is expected to have changed Whereas outcome evaluation tends to focus on conditions or behaviors that the program was expected to affect most directly and immediately (i e , “proximal” outcomes), impact evaluation examines the program’s long-term goals Summative, outcome, and impact evaluation are appropriate to conduct when the program either has been completed or has been ongoing for a substantial period of time (Rossi et al , 2004) For example, assessing the strategies used to implement a smoking cessation program and determining the degree to which it reached the target population are process evaluations In contrast, an outcome evaluation of a smoking cessation program might examine how many of the program’s participants stopped smoking as compared with persons who did not participate Reduction in morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease may represent an impact goal for a smoking cessation program (Rossi et al , 2004) Evaluation can be classified into five types by intended use: formative, process, summative, outcome, and impact. 165
Several institutions have identified guidelines for an effective evaluation For example, in 1999, CDC published a framework to guide public health professionals in developing and implementing a program evaluation (CDC, 1999) The impetus for the framework was to facilitate the integration of evaluation into public health programs, but the framework focuses on six components that are critical for any evaluation Although the components are interdependent and might be implemented in a nonlinear order, the earlier domains provide a foundation for subsequent areas They include: • Engage stakeholders to ensure that all partners invested in what will be learned from the evaluation become engaged early in the evaluation process • Describe the program to clearly identify its goals and objectives. This description should include the program’s needs, expected outcomes, activities, resources, stage of development, context, and logic model • Design the evaluation design to be useful, feasible, ethical, and accurate. • Gather credible evidence that strengthens the results of the evaluation and its recommendations Sources of evidence could include people, documents, and observations • Justify conclusions that are linked to the results and judged against standards or values of the stakeholders • Deliberately ensure use of the evaluation and share lessons learned from it. Five years before CDC issued its framework, the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (1994) created an important and practical resource for improving program evaluation The Joint Committee, a nonprofit coalition of major professional organizations concerned with the quality of program evaluations, identified four major categories of standards — propriety, utility, feasibility, and accuracy — to consider when conducting a program evaluation Propriety standards focus on ensuring that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with regard for promoting the welfare of those involved 166
Page 1 and 2:
PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Page 3 and 4:
TABLE OF CONTENTS CTSA Community En
Page 5 and 6:
Editorial and Research Staff Mina S
Page 7 and 8:
For further information on the CTSA
Page 9 and 10:
FOREWORD As Surgeon General, I am p
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary
Page 13 and 14:
of Veterans Affairs, and other fede
Page 15 and 16:
REFERENCES Ahmed SM, Palermo AG Com
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1 Community Engagement: Def
Page 19 and 20:
clinics, agencies, after-school pro
Page 21 and 22:
The eligibility criteria that scien
Page 23 and 24:
2 Design and delivery—Improvement
Page 25 and 26:
There is no question that culture a
Page 27 and 28:
oot causes of problems while at the
Page 29 and 30:
• Know the community, its constit
Page 31 and 32:
• Coalitions require that each pa
Page 33 and 34:
studies demonstrate that IRBs gener
Page 35 and 36:
action at those levels This approac
Page 37 and 38:
• S o c i e t y : Advocate for th
Page 39 and 40:
According to Rogers, the characteri
Page 41 and 42:
is the added value of CBPR to the r
Page 43 and 44:
• It is important to understand c
Page 45 and 46:
Butterfoss FD, Kegler MC (2002) Tow
Page 47 and 48:
Flicker S, Travers R, Guta A, McDon
Page 49 and 50:
Jones MR, Horner RD, Edwards LJ, Ho
Page 51 and 52:
Minkler M Community organizing and
Page 53 and 54:
Shore N Community-based participato
Page 55 and 56:
Yale Center for Clinical Investigat
Page 57 and 58:
Chapter 2 Principles of Community E
Page 59 and 60:
• Ask community members to specif
Page 61 and 62:
trust for a true partnership Such m
Page 63 and 64:
that affect health and health dispa
Page 65 and 66:
difference in the health of the pop
Page 67 and 68:
Chapter 3 Successful Examples in th
Page 69 and 70:
59 TABLE 3.1. MATRIX OF CASE EXAMPL
Page 71 and 72:
a mission statement written in the
Page 73 and 74:
2. HEALTH-E-AME Background: The Med
Page 75 and 76:
3. PROJECT SUGAR Background: Gullah
Page 77 and 78:
Websites http://academicdepartments
Page 79 and 80:
of the community context, developme
Page 81 and 82:
5. HEALING OF THE CANOE Background:
Page 83 and 84:
6. FORMANDO NUESTRO FUTURO/SHAPING
Page 85 and 86:
7. IMPROVING AMERICAN INDIAN CANCER
Page 87 and 88:
and the mistreatment of some Americ
Page 89 and 90:
access to resources for healthy eat
Page 91 and 92:
9. THE DENTAL PRACTICE-BASED RESEAR
Page 93 and 94:
10. DIABETES EDUCATION & PREVENTION
Page 95 and 96:
11. PROJECT DULCE Background: Diabe
Page 97 and 98:
References Gilmer TP, Philis-Tsimik
Page 99 and 100:
milestones in child development, ch
Page 101 and 102:
Chapter 4 Managing Organizational S
Page 103 and 104:
engagement is not limited to coalit
Page 105 and 106:
Practice Element 1: Know the Commun
Page 107 and 108:
each capacity component for this pr
Page 109 and 110:
REFERENCES Butterfoss FD. Coalition
Page 111 and 112:
Table 4.1. Know the Community, Its
Page 113 and 114:
Table 4.3. Build and Sustain Networ
Page 115 and 116:
Challenges in Improving Community E
Page 117 and 118:
ecommended public health practices
Page 119 and 120: community setting can be just as ri
Page 121 and 122: These challenges do not compare, ho
Page 123 and 124: halted its efforts to collect data
Page 125 and 126: mechanisms for communication, the c
Page 127 and 128: The researchers and the community b
Page 129 and 130: Horn K, McGloin T, Dino G, Manzo K,
Page 131 and 132: Take-Home Messages • Be explicit
Page 133 and 134: At meetings of the CAB, decisions w
Page 135 and 136: 3. WORKING WITH NONTRADITIONAL COMM
Page 137 and 138: B. How do you engage a state as a c
Page 139 and 140: to those applying for funds The eva
Page 141 and 142: 4. INITIATING A PROJECT WITH A COMM
Page 143 and 144: B. How do you set up and maintain a
Page 145 and 146: References Blumenthal DS A communit
Page 147 and 148: parties grew frustrated The partner
Page 149 and 150: 5. O VERCOMING COMPETING PRIORITIES
Page 151 and 152: Reference Reifsnider E, Hargraves M
Page 153 and 154: Take-Home Messages • “Splitting
Page 155 and 156: Although the CTSA sites in the Bost
Page 157 and 158: Chapter 6 The Value of Social Netwo
Page 159 and 160: Social networks can also play an im
Page 161 and 162: engagement effort, relationships mu
Page 163 and 164: engagement Furthermore, social medi
Page 165 and 166: REFERENCES Arthur T The role of soc
Page 167 and 168: Program Evaluation and Evaluating C
Page 169: approaches to evaluation that are p
Page 173 and 174: Planning Defining and identifying s
Page 175 and 176: Once the positive outcome of a prog
Page 177 and 178: The major goal of empowerment evalu
Page 179 and 180: Table 7.1. Types of Evaluation Ques
Page 181 and 182: The evaluation of community engagem
Page 183 and 184: for understanding a community and i
Page 185 and 186: REFERENCES Anderson RM, Funnell MM,
Page 187 and 188: Patton MQ Qualitative evaluation an
Page 189 and 190: Chapter 8 Summary Donna Jo McCloske
Page 191 and 192: • Know the extent to which the fo
Page 193 and 194: Appendix A: Acronyms
Page 195 and 196: CDC Centers for Disease Control and
Page 197: NIH Publication No. 11-7782
show all

Principles of Community Engagement (Second Edition)

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?