100 likes | 269 Views
Evaluation of the Wake County Syphilis Elimination Project Wake County, North Carolina. David Napp Practical Applications of Public Health March 11, 2004. Evaluation Focus. Intensive Community Education Efforts (ICEEs) Condoms Distribution Sites (CDS) Community Task Force
E N D
Evaluation of the Wake County Syphilis Elimination ProjectWake County, North Carolina David Napp Practical Applications of Public Health March 11, 2004
Evaluation Focus • Intensive Community Education Efforts (ICEEs) • Condoms Distribution Sites (CDS) • Community Task Force • Syphilis Screening Activities
Methods • Observations of ICEEs (3 observations) • Surveys with community members (n=169) • Focus groups with community members (3 FGs) • Observations and interviews at condom distribution sites (11 CDS) • Interviews with task force members (n=14) • Analysis of secondary data
Successes • Participatory approach with a focus on generating data useful to stakeholders • Active collaboration between project and evaluator to: • Create a logic model • Define evaluation questions • Develop data collection instruments • Collect data • Interpret findings • Craft recommendations for program improvement
Successes • Participatory approach developed evaluation capacity • Evaluation and data collection training provided • Evaluation concepts became more concrete and applied through active involvement • “Evaluative thinking” generalized to other projects • Evaluation yielded recommendations for project improvements that were implemented
Challenges • Balancing evaluation versus service-delivery responsibilities of staff • Completing enough surveys for sub-group analysis • Getting good attendance at each focus group • Organizing the large volume of monitoring data archived on paper forms
Program Improvements:ICEE • Expanding focus to include HIV • Improving consistency of educational materials and information disseminated • Starting to use fixed-site ICEE
Program Improvements:ICEE • Shifting prevention education toward group-level interventions versus “one-time” approach • Developing educational sessions for grandparents • Saturating geographic area for six months
Program Improvements:CDS • Training owners to be lay-educators • Updating owners about SEP activities • Monitoring CDS compliance more closely • Established an initial three-month probation
Program Improvements:Task Force • Increasing number of community representatives • Rotating meeting location to improve access • Defining members’ roles and responsibilities more clearly (e.g., elected chairperson)