Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #112530

Mary Kreger, DrPH¹, Claire Brindis, DrPH², Herebeto Escamilla, PhD³, Marion Standish, JD⁴, Diane Manuel, PhD⁴, and Lauren M. Sassoubre, BA¹. (1) Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, 3333 California Street, Suite 265, San Francisco, CA 94114, 415-502-4544, mkreger@itsa.ucsf.edu, (2) Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, University of California at San Francisco, 3333 California Street; Suite 265, San Francisco, CA 94143-0936, (3) Philliber Research Associates, 2772 Wilma Street, National City, CA 91950, (4) The California Endowment, 101 2nd Street, San Francisco, CA 94105

Purpose: The Community Action to Fight Asthma Initiative during its first iteration (funded by The California Endowment) provided funding to nineteen local, regional, and state-level coalitions and technical assistance providers across California from 2002 to 2005. The Initiative spawned multiple coalitions and networks across the Grantees. These Grantees used their local experience with educational and prevention interventions to advocate for local, regional, and statewide environmental policy change.

Evaluation of the Initiative included • Process and outcome measures, • Collaboration surveys, • Policymaker surveys, • Site visits, and • Assessments of the Initiative.

At the local-level activities fell into three primary categories: • Schools, • Indoor air quality, and • Outdoor air quality.

At the state-level policy level the two areas of emphasis were: • Reducing diesel pollution, and • Reducing pollutants in schools.

We will discuss the evolution of the Initiative, evaluation of the various segments of it, community involvement and roles, effective approaches to advocacy and policy work, and lessons learned about evaluating this type of community initiative.

Methods and results: A combination of site visits, interviews, surveys, and collaborative approaches were used to evaluate the Initiative and its outcomes.

Conclusion: Evaluation of this type of multilevel Initiative provides valuable feedback to the participants and the funder. The shifts from educational and clinical work to environmental work and from direct service to advocacy and policy work required a significant adjustment for coalitions and communities. Suggestions for the types of evaluation tools that provided valuable information are made.

Learning Objectives: