|
|
|
|
|
Robert J. Letourneau, MPH, Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, CB#7506, 137 East Franklin Street, Suite 21, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7506, 919-966-3920, Robert_Letourneau@unc.edu and Carolyn E. Crump, PhD, Department of Health Behavior & Health Education, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, CB#7506, 137 E. Franklin Street, Suite 21, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7506.
Purpose: This presentation describes the evaluation of the Indian Health Service (IHS) Injury Prevention Program (IPP) conducted by the University of North Carolina (UNC) by focusing on methods and process-related results/conclusions. Abstract #80614 highlights outcome-related results/conclusions. The IHS IPP, divided into 12 Service Areas, is responsible for providing IP services to over 1.5 million AI/AN who belong to more than 557 federally recognized Tribes in 35 states. Methods: Grounded in empowerment evaluation, data collection protocols guided 12 Area site visit interviews, observations, and document review. The evaluators developed a Program Stage of Development Assessment Tool to consistently assess, interpret, and summarize each Area’s stage of development across 12 program components at a basic, intermediate, or comprehensive level. Follow-up telephone interviews and surveys with Area IP staff were conducted. Results: A total of 108 IHS and 184 Tribal staff were interviewed, 44 focus group-type meetings were conducted, and 56 Tribes/Tribal entities were visited, culminating in 12 evaluation reports. Follow-up interviews were conducted with 12 Area IP Specialists (RR=100%) and surveys were completed by 31 IHS/Tribal staff (RR=45%). Conclusions: Implementation of the evaluation process identified strengths of the empowerment evaluation approach (e.g., staff involvement, ability to make immediate changes) and highlighted the value of comprehensive data collection (e.g., ability to analyze patterns). Limitations of the process included: a) time involved to prepare for/conduct Area evaluations; b) inability to meet all staff associated with an Area’s program; and c) risk that outside evaluators can sidestep controversial issues and avoid reporting negative findings.
Learning Objectives:
Keywords: Injury, Evaluation
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
I have a significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.
Relationship: Lead authors (Letourneau and Crump) have been funded through the University of North Carolina by the Indian Health Service to conduct the external evaluation of the IHS Injury Prevention Program.