State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S....
Transcript of State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S....
![Page 1: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans:A Multi-State Scan
September 5, 2007
Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D.Consultant to KDHE/TUPP
![Page 2: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Objectives
Review methodology used Describe summary findings Share patterns common among states Q & A
![Page 3: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
State selection criteria
states that invest in comprehensive tobacco prevention and control
Lead the nation in decreasing use among various age, racial and other populations
Border Kansas
![Page 4: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
States Included: Arkansas California Indiana Maine Massachusetts Texas Missouri Nebraska Colorado Oklahoma
(New York) (Louisiana)
![Page 5: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Methodology
Identify key personnel to contact Use the web extensively for published
reports and findings Follow-up
to clarify information about their state to identify funding sources for evaluation-
specific activities
![Page 6: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Six common elements
1. Comprehensive evaluation linked to at least one of the CDC key goal areas
2. “Dual purpose” use of surveillance activities to meet elements of their tobacco-specific evaluation plan
3. Process measures for individual programs (such as the use of tobacco quit lines)
![Page 7: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Six common elements
4. Measure changes in cigarette consumption
5. Measure adult and youth smoking prevalence
6. Track policy initiatives to protect the public from secondhand smoke
![Page 8: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Five things usually missing
1. Consistent use of a logic model in constructing evaluation activities
2. Outcome measures linked to program goals
3. Economic analysis of program effectiveness
4. Realistic funding to accomplish evaluation
5. Effective communications
![Page 9: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Three common complaints1. Funding – particularly uneven funding
over time – challenges every state plan, and as the plan has to be modified, so too do evaluation activities
2. CDC Key Indicators are too extensive and lack guidance for states to use effectively, particularly when funds are limited
3. Evaluation is not often considered a critical element of the state plan
![Page 10: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Funding levels
Difficult to tease out from overall program investments
Low (if > 0) = $160K (Oklahoma) High (state $) = $3M (California) High (non-state) = ~$250K (Missouri)
![Page 11: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Considered very important
Link questions to dollarsLink questions to dollars (saved)
![Page 12: State Comprehensive Tobacco Program Evaluation Plans: A Multi-State Scan September 5, 2007 Kim S. Kimminau, Ph.D. Consultant to KDHE/TUPP.](https://reader035.fdocuments.net/reader035/viewer/2022070411/56649f475503460f94c691f2/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Take-away lessons
Process, outcome, impact measures – in that order – are included in evaluation
Most embed evaluation into specific program activities
Link with cancer plan(s) Funding has enormous impact on
sustainability of evaluation activities