Healthy CO Community

8/8/2019 Healthy CO Community

1/30

NELSON DIARTEMARY GONZALEZ

MEGAN WRIGHT

EVALUATION OF THE COLORADOHEALTHY COMMUNITIES INITIATIVE

AN INTERVIEWWITHROSS CONNER


2/30

Ross Conner

y Received his Ph.D. and M.A.degrees in social psychology andevaluation from NorthwesternUniversity USA and his B.A. inpsychology from The Johns

Hopkins University USA

y Faculty of the University ofCalifornia at Irvine

y Founder & Director of the Center

for Community Health Research inthe School of Social Ecology

y President of the Board of Trusteesof the International Organizationfor Cooperation in Evaluation


3/30

Ross Conner cont.

y Cancer control Chinese &Korean communities insouth California

y Assessment & strategicreview of CA EndowmentsCommunity First grantprogram

y Author & Co-author of 9books, numerous papers &articles

y Received the AmericanEvaluation Association 02Outstanding Evaluation

Award for his work withCHCI

http://socialecology.uci.edu/faculty/rfconner


4/30

Colorado Healthy Community Initiative (CHCI)

y Mission: Help communities find their ownsolutions using local, broad participation,

consensus decision making, a broad definition ofhealth and capacity building


5/30

CHCI Description Program Background

y The program began as a result of work conducted bythe Colorado Trust

y The study examined demographic, social & economictrends and results from focus groups with citizen andleaders around the state

y The study found that Coloradans were not participating

in decisions that affect their community & their future

y Colorado Trust created CHCI and allocated money forfive and later eight years efforts


6/30

Target Communities

y CHCI involved 29 communities

y 28 completed planning phase, 27 completed

implementation phase

y There was a great deal of diversity

Geographic size

Urban vs. Rural Population

Ethnic/race groups

Incomes


7/30

Challenges to evaluators

y Determining how to evaluate an initiative thatdiffered in each community

y

Conner & team conducted the evaluation in a waythat was congruent with principles and goals ofCHCI

y They focused on describing & telling story of each

community

y Processes & immediate outcomes provided thedraft model for the evaluation efforts


8/30

Selection of Evaluation Model

y Conner & team developed a model where citizenswere central actors to establish goals & objectives,and to implement the project

y The model was an adaptation of the National CivicLeagues approach to healthy communities

y

The project begun in 1992. Each community wasinvolved in strategic planning followed by actionproject implementation


9/30

Goals and Activities

y The initiative used traditional and nontraditionalmethods

To track the CHCI programs in individual communities

To identify short-term outcomes for participants and for theproject

To investigate longer-term outcomes on the communities


10/30

Goals and Activities cont

y In-depth case studies

y Comparison case studies

y Stakeholders surveys

y Interview with community leaders

y Community-based indicators

y Implementation progress reports


11/30

Goals and Activities cont

y There was never a program that was instituted

y The evaluation team was creating and adjusting theevaluation design to capture the main processes

within each communities, across communities andacross time


12/30

Phases of the Evaluation

y Strategic planning phase: occurred over 15 to 18months

y

Action-focus implementation phase: lasted from 2to 3 years

y Indicators were introduced midway in the majorityof the communities


13/30

Outcomes from Planning Phase

y Citizens came and stayed together

y Stakeholders thought broadly about health

y Community groups moved from ideas to proposedactions

y Community groups increased skills and abilities toaccomplish community work


14/30

Outcomes from Planning Phase

y At individual level: stakeholders increased abilitiesto understand community problems, collaboratedand took active roles

y At group level: stakeholders obtained support ofpowerful community leaders to lay foundations for

future works


15/30

Outcomes from Implementation Phase

y Groups maintained broad & active partnershipwith diverse sectors of communities

y Partnership varied from informal cooperation &coordination to formal coalitions & collaborations


16/30

Outcomes from Implementation Phase

y CHCI projects not only undertook proposed originalactivities but also took new opportunities that arosefrom new partnership

y Outcomes ranged from issue-focused to communitydevelopment-focused outcomes

Creation of a new family resource center (issue-focused)

Citizens participated in important community decision makingbodies causing significant policy changes (communitydevelopment-focused)


17/30

Unanticipated Outcomes

y During planning phase a coalition was formed, thiseventually grew into an independent organization:Colorado Center for Healthy Communities

y Communities developed individualized-basedindicators. These allowed communities to track

progress toward achieving their vision.


18/30

Overall outcome/Value of the evaluation

y Colorado Trust was able to affect the waycommunities went about decision making andproblem solving.

y CHCI was able to provide stakeholders with abroader, deeper understanding of therequirements, opportunities, and realities

associated with promoting community health.


19/30

Connections to Course materials

y Models used

Mixed method study design as illustrated bycomparative case studies

yA mix of activities were used to gather data

Qualitative and Quantitative data collection andanalysis methods


20/30


y KEC II. Preface

Evaluation was asked by Colorado Trust

y KEC III. Methodology

The design blended traditional and nontraditionalmethods


21/30


y KEC 1. Background and Context

CHCI wanted to contribute to change, not solelycausing it

y KEC 2 & 3 Descriptions & Definitions andConsumers

29 communities, 28 completed planning phase & 27completed implementation phase


22/30


y KEC 4. Resources

Colorado Trust allocated enough money for the firstfive years initiative as well as for continuing three

more years

y KEC 5. Values

Individual and groups in the communities developedhelp develop their own evaluation criteria with thehelp of the practitioners


23/30


y KEC 6. Process Evaluation

Evaluation design and delivery were suitable for thistype of initiative

y KEC 7. Outcome Evaluation

Individual and groups in the communities developedskills, set standards, developed indicators and raisedtheir self esteem


24/30


y KEC 8 & 9. Cost Effectiveness

Conner expended few resources as possible on theevaluation component. Evaluative aspects reflected

on spending more resources in the early stages of theproject.

y KEC 10. Exportability

Evaluation was recognized because its success in

addressing methodological challenges


25/30


y KEC 11 15 Conclusions

Conner role as facilitator and teacher brought in

different set of skillsResearch assistants were deeply involved in design,

implementation and reporting as well as balancingparticipation and persuasion

This type of project was difficult to evaluate


26/30

Connections to Course Materials

y Unit 3 evaluative models- Comparative Case Studiesand Constructivist Model presented by Wright,Gonzalez and Jarvis

y Logic Models used in Program Planning andProgram Implementation- page 278 article and Unit5 in course materials


27/30


28/30

Future Considerations

y Updated data or similar data sets for comparisonsshould be obtained along with bench marks alongthe way

y Devoting more resources to the short term outcomesin communities based evaluations

y The evaluator "wears many hats" and must be readyto change

y The evaluative process must be responsive and nothighly structured due to the diversity of thecommunities involved.


29/30

References

y Conner, R. F., & Christie, C. A. (2009). Evaluation of the ColoradoHealthy Communities Initiative: An interview with Ross Conner.In J. Fitzpatrick, C. Christie, & M. M. Mark (Eds.),Evaluation inaction: Interviews with expert evaluators (pp. 269298). LosAngeles: Sage Publications, Inc.

y Conner, R. F., & Easterling, D. (2009). The Colorado trust's healthycommunities initiative: Results and lessons for comprehensivecommunity initiatives. The Foundation Review, 1(1), 24-42.

y Davidson, E.J. (2005).Evaluation methodology basics: The nuts andbolts of sound evaluation. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publications, Inc.

y Guba, Egon (1990). The Paradigm Dialog. Newbury Park, California:Sage Publications, Inc.


30/30

Questions? Comments

Documents

Healthy CO Community