NWHF Community-Based Participatory Research Conference Portland, OR Friday, July 20, 2007 This...

NWHF Community-Based Participatory Research Conference

Portland, OR

Friday, July 20, 2007This project was funded by the

Oregon DHS Public Health Division

Evaluation Planning with Tobacco Prevention & Education Networks: A Community-Based Participatory

Approach

www.npcresearch.com

NPC Research 2July 2007

Panel Members

R.E. Szego, OR LGBTQ Coalition Against Tobacco

Jennifer Kue, Asian & Pacific Islander TPEP Coordinator

Luci Longoria, Disparities Liaison for the Oregon Tobacco Prevention & Education Program

Carrie Furrer & Scott Burrus, NPC Research


NPC Project Team

Beth Green, Ph.D., Principal Investigator

Carrie Furrer, Ph.D., Project Director

Scott Burrus, Ph.D., Project Coordinator

Jelani Greenidge, BA Research Assistant


Acknowledgements

TPEN Program Coordinators

Evaluation Teams at each of the 5 TPENs

Oregon DHS Public Health Division


Overview of Oregon TPEP Tobacco Prevention & Education Program Comprehensive, statewide public health effort

aimed at reducing the toll of tobacco-related death and disease

TPEP-funded programs work to:– Create smoke-free and tobacco-free environments

through public policy

– Counter pro-tobacco influences

– Promote quitting


What is a TPEN? Tobacco Prevention & Education Network Focus on groups facing tobacco disparities:

– African American– Asian and Pacific Islander– Hispanic/Latino– Urban American Indian– Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender/Questioning

(LGBTQ)

Develop and implement culturally-reflective best practice strategies


Purpose of Project

Assist TPENs in the development of community-driven evaluation plans and tools

Build capacity for evaluation planning and eventual evaluation activities


What is CBPR?

Community-Based Participatory Research

Engages program stakeholders

Shared learning and power

Evaluators as “coaches”

Values community expertise, traditions, priorities


CBPR Evaluation Planning

Community “owns” the evaluation process

– Articulates priorities

– Crafts questions

– Involvement in tool development

– Defines success

Culturally mindful planning process

Culturally appropriate products


CBPR Framework

Step 1: Information Gathering

Step 2: Information Synthesis

Step 3: Information Sharing & Feedback

Step 4: Develop Goals

Step 5: Complete Evaluation Plan

Step 6: Review Progress


Evaluation Planning Activities Create community buy-in for evaluation

Identify community needs

Identify TPEN practices & whether they address community needs

Develop logic model for TPEN practices

Craft evaluation questions & data sources for each step of the logic model

Design tools to answer evaluation questions


Steps 1 & 2: Information Gathering and Synthesis

Interview DHS key stakeholders

Interview each TPEN Program Coordinator

Review each TPEN’s work plan

Review CDC Best Practices & related literature

Review other state Tobacco Control Plans


Steps 1 & 2: TPEN Program Coordinator Questions

What was your initial reaction to the idea of evaluation planning?

Did you have any concerns?

Was there anything about evaluation that you were particularly interested in?


Steps 1 & 2: DHS Project Officer Questions

Why was CBPR important to this process?

What did you hope that TPEN Program Coordinators would get out of the evaluation planning process?



Pre-planning meeting– Statement of purpose– Logistics– Review preliminary logic model– Recruitment



Initial Evaluation Team Meeting– Form collaborative partnership– Introduce basic evaluation principles– Establish structure to guide collaboration– Identify tobacco-related community needs– Select core TPEN activity– Develop logic model for selected activity


Step 3: TPEN Program Coordinator Questions

How prepared were you for what was covered in your initial Evaluation Team Meeting?

What was the most important thing that you learned from your initial Evaluation Team Meeting?

What do you wish you would have learned but did not?


Step 4: Develop Goals

Initial & Second Evaluation Team Meetings– Thinking through short-term and long-term

goals– Identifying what is important for the

community to know about the work– Linking evaluation questions to logic model– Authenticating different ways of knowing



What challenges did you face going into your second Evaluation Team Meeting?

What was the most important thing that you learned from your second Evaluation Team Meeting?

What do you wish you would have learned but did not?


Step 5: Complete Evaluation Plan

Second & Third Evaluation Team Meetings– Identify key evaluation questions– Revise preliminary logic model– Identify data sources, measures and data

collection methods– Revise current data collection plans (if

appropriate)– Develop evaluation tools



Do you believe that the tools developed (logic models, evaluation questions, tracking forms, assessments, etc.) reflect the needs, values, traditions, and priorities of your community?

Do you now have the capacity to:– revise your current evaluation plan– execute evaluation activities, and – develop an evaluation plan for other activities?


Step 5: DHS Project Officer Questions

What was the most beneficial technical assistance that you provided during this process?

What other kinds of technical assistance would have been useful?

What were the top 2 accomplishments of the evaluation planning process?

What do you wish would have been accomplished but was not?


Step 6: Review Progress

Iterative process

Opportunities for feedback

Review at each community meeting

One-on-one meetings with Program Coordinator

Readiness for change



Do you think that you were provided enough opportunities to provide feedback?

What kind of technical assistance was most helpful to you?

What else in the way of technical assistance would you have liked to receive?

How responsive was the process to your/your community’s needs?


Accomplishments

Program advocacy

Build evaluation capacity

Design culturally-appropriate tools

Program documentation

Define community-specific processes

Develop a community knowledge base


Lessons Learned

TPEN readiness for evaluation planning

Community readiness for evaluation

Community stakeholder recruitment

Versatile evaluation planning team

Flexible evaluation planning process

Need for clear next steps


More Information Carrie Furrer, NPC Research

[email protected]

Full report online at: www.npcresearch.com

Oregon DHS Public Health Division: www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/tobacco/index.shtml

R.E. Szego, OR LGBTQ Coalition Against Tobacco [email protected]

Jennifer Kue, API TPEN Coordinator [email protected]

NWHF Community-Based Participatory Research Conference Portland, OR Friday, July 20, 2007 This...

Documents

Transcript of NWHF Community-Based Participatory Research Conference Portland, OR Friday, July 20, 2007 This...