|
||||||||
National Center For Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion | ||||||||
TIPS Home | What's New | Mission | Fact Sheets | Site Map | Contact Us |
|
|
Potential audiences for recommendations
|
The purpose of your evaluation (e.g., to improve your program, demonstrate its effectiveness, or demonstrate accountability to stakeholders) will also shape how you frame your recommendations. Here are some examples of recommendations for different audiences:
Audience: Local counter-marketing program
Purpose of evaluation: Improve program efforts.
Recommendation: Thirty-five percent of African Americans in Region 2 recalled the content of counter-marketing messages. To meet the current objective of a 50% recall rate among this population group, we recommend developing culturally appropriate media messages and increasing the number of messages targeted to the African American media market in this region.
Audience: Schools/school boards/school administrations.
Purpose of evaluation: Demonstrate effectiveness; improve program efforts.
Recommendation: Although all schools in School District A have implemented CDC-recommended tobacco-free guidelines, only 10% of these schools actively enforce the guidelines. We recommend increasing the number of enforcement activities in School District A. One way to do this is to have the school boards work with local coalitions to provide incentives and commendations for exemplary schools; another is to designate school enforcement officials.
Audience: Legislators.
Purpose of evaluation: Demonstrate effectiveness.
Recommendation: Last year, a targeted education and media campaign about the dangers of ETS and the benefits of smoke- free homes was conducted across the state. Eighty percent of adults were reached by the campaign and reported having smoke-free home rulesa twofold increase from the year before. We recommend the campaign be continued and expanded to include smoke-free automobiles.
Audience: City council.
Purpose of evaluation: Demonstrate effectiveness.
Recommendation: In June of this past year, City C passed a complete ban on smoking in bars and restaurants. Data from our smoke-free-air hotline indicate that 30% of establishments are still not complying with this new ordinance. We recommend that you incorporate compliance checks for this ordinance into the city's health-inspection site visits, apply penalties for violation, and citations for compliance.
Audience: Funding source.
Purpose of evaluation: Demonstrate fiscal accountability.
Recommendation: For the past year, the tobacco control program has worked through local coalitions, educational campaigns, and media efforts to increase awareness and support for smoke-free indoor air policies. As a result, public support for strong smoke-free indoor air policies has increased to 85%, up from 70% last year, and there has been a 25% increase in the number of workplaces with voluntary smoke-free policies. We recommend continued support for a comprehensive program that includes efforts to address the dangers of ETS and the need for policy change.
Audience: Legislators.
Purpose of evaluation: Monitor trends.
Recommendation: During the past 5 years, smoking-cessation attempts by young adults have decreased. Only 10% of young adult smokers attempted to quit smoking in the past year. We recommend that the program focus on targeting smoking- cessation messages and making cessation services available to young adults across the state.
Return to top of page
After you have decided on the recommendations, the next step is to share the evaluation results with your stakeholders and others who should be aware of the information (Box 4).
Dissemination is the process of communicating either the procedures or the lessons learned from an evaluation in a timely, unbiased, and consistent manner. Planning effective communication requires considering the timing, style, tone, message source, vehicle, and format of information products.
An evaluation report tailored to your audience is an appropriate method for communicating and disseminating the results of the evaluation. The evaluation report must clearly, succinctly, and impartially communicate all parts of the evaluation (Box 5). The report should be written so that it is easy to understand. It need not be lengthy or technical. You should also consider oral presentations tailored to various audiences. Examples of evaluation reports available on the Internet are listed under "Resources" at the end of this chapter.
Tips for writing and disseminating your evaluation report(s)
|
|
A traditional outline for an evaluation report might look like this:
Executive Summary
Background and Purpose
Program background
Evaluation rationale
Program descriptionEvaluation Methods
Design
Sampling procedures
Measures or indicators
Data-collection procedures
Data-processing procedures
Analysis
LimitationsResults
Discussion and
RecommendationsAppendices
The ultimate purpose of program evaluation is to use the information to improve programs. The purpose(s) you identified early in the evaluation process should guide the use of the evaluation results. The evaluation results can be used to demonstrate the effectiveness of your program, identify ways to improve your program, modify program planning, demonstrate accountability, and justify funding.
Additional uses include the following:
Evaluation is a practical tool that states can use to inform programs' efforts and assess their impact. Program evaluation should be well integrated into the day-to-day planning, implementation, and management of public health programs. Program evaluation complements CDC's operating principles for public health, which include using science as a basis for decision making and action, expanding the quest for social equity, performing effectively as a service agency, and making efforts outcome-oriented. These principles highlight the need for programs to develop clear plans, inclusive partnerships, and feedback systems that support ongoing improvement. CDC is committed to providing additional tools and technical assistance to states and tobacco control partners to build and enhance their capacity for evaluation.
|
California
Massachusetts
Oregon
Arizona
Florida
Georgia
Iowa
http://www.idph.state.ia.us/tobacco/pdf/2002_IYTS.pdf* (
PDF)
Kansas
Mississippi
http://www.msdh.state.ms.us/msdhsite/index.cfm/29,145,75,32,pdf/tobacco1998yts%2Epdf*
(PDF)
New Jersey
North Carolina
www.communityhealth.dhhs.state.nc.us/ tobacco/Survey/survey.htm*
Oklahoma
Texas
Wisconsin
* Links to non-Federal organizations are provided solely as a service to our users. Links do not constitute an endorsement of any organization by CDC or the Federal Government, and none should be inferred. The CDC is not responsible for the content of the individual organization Web pages found at this link. |
|
One or more documents on this Web page is available in Portable Document Format (PDF). You will need Acrobat Reader (a free application) to view and print these documents. |
|
Privacy Policy | Accessibility TIPS Home | What's New | About Us | Site Map | Contact Us CDC Home | Search | Health Topics A-Z This page last reviewed August 10, 2004 United States
Department of Health and Human Services |