1 / 17

TCE Board Presentation February, 2006

Evaluating the. Initiative. Informing Evaluations of MAPP. TCE Board Presentation February, 2006. Oakland, CA - Seattle, WA. Presentation Overview. About PPH Intersection of PPH and MAPP Developing and using intermediate indicators. PPH Initiative. Public Health Departments (14).

ailish
Télécharger la présentation

TCE Board Presentation February, 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluating the Initiative Informing Evaluations of MAPP TCE Board Presentation February, 2006 Oakland, CA - Seattle, WA

  2. Presentation Overview • About PPH • Intersection of PPH and MAPP • Developing and using intermediate indicators

  3. PPH Initiative Public Health Departments (14) 39 Partnerships PPH Approach • Program Office • Grants Management • Technical Assistance • Communication • Policy • Evaluation Community Groups (39, 2-3 per health dept)

  4. Goals of PPH Initiative 5 goal areas • Community group internal capacity building • Health department internal capacity building • Partnership development • Community health improvement • Policy and systems change

  5. Multiple Levels to Consider

  6. Key PPH Accomplishments • Successful models for public health partnerships • Policy change activities supported partnerships • Partnership efforts are being sustained • Health departments learning new ways of working with community

  7. MAPP & PPH:The Connection • 8 PPH jurisdictions completed some or all of MAPP • PPH funded MAPP (minimal) • PPH partnership key to to implementation of MAPP in PPH sites

  8. MAPP & PPH: Comparison • Both start with partnerships and end with improved health • Both emphasize the health department working with community • Both need to accommodate the specific contexts of a health department jurisdiction (demographics, geography, politics) • MAPP emphasizes assessment process and planning, PPH emphasized program development and policy change

  9. Developing Intermediate Indicators • Used logic models and case studies (descriptive data) • Looked at intermediate steps and ideal pathways • Emphasized progress and change • Looked at contribution rather than attribution

  10. No paid staff • No office • Little/no resident engagement • Unclear decision making structures Goal 1: Strengthening Internal Capacities of Community Group • Skilled, stable leadership • Clear, appropriate governance structure • Funding to sustain programs • Ability to engage and mobilize the community • Methods for building residents skills • Strong alliances with other organizations

  11. Limited awareness of the benefits of working with community • No support for staff to work with community • Limited opportunities for residents to give input on planning and programs Goal 2: Enhance health department capacities to work with communities • Organizational culture committed to working with community • Workforce policies support staff working with community • Multiple ways for residents to have input • Resources dedicated to building residents skills

  12. No/negative prior relationship between HD and community group • Lack of trust • No shared understanding of the purpose of the partnership • No formalized structures for partnership Goal 3: Create sustainable partnerships • Partnership viewed as positive and mutually beneficial • Structures in place to facilitate working together • Proven ability to share resources and jointly implement activities • Ability to sustain partnership

  13. Limited ability to carry out community health improvement activities • Activities that focused on agency interventions, health education, and service delivery • Limited programs or activities Goal 4: Develop programs, services and/or activities aimed at improving health • Partnership working jointly to implement sustainable activities and programs that have the potential to improve the health of the community • Ability to address multiple community health issues and/or the broad determinants of health

  14. No experience with policy and systems change activities • No resident advocacy skills • Little understanding of the meaning and purpose of policy and systems change Goal 5: Develop policies that support improved health • Partnership has successfully changed and/or enforced local policies • Partnership has an experienced and savvy constituency to mobilize around community health issues • Policy is integral part of health improvement strategies

  15. Policy & Systems Changes

  16. Summary • A number of connections between MAPP and PPH • Intermediate indicators allow documentation of change • Evaluation of community-based efforts need to focus on contribution rather than attribution • Contribution and linkages based on logic modeling and descriptive documentation

  17. Contact Information Clarissa Hsu Group Health Community Foundation 1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1500 Seattle, WA 98101 206-287-4276 Hsu.c@ghc.org Websites: http://www.ghcfoundation.org/fhealth.html http://partnershipph.org/

More Related