1 / 18

PRI Cohort I Process Evaluation (July 1 2010 – June 30 2011)

PRI Cohort I Process Evaluation (July 1 2010 – June 30 2011). Preliminary Findings. Outline. Introduction Community Selection and Recruitment process School Engagement Process Developing Coalition/Core Workgroups Communications: Press Release Template Athena Forum Learning Community

misae
Download Presentation

PRI Cohort I Process Evaluation (July 1 2010 – June 30 2011)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PRI Cohort I Process Evaluation(July 1 2010 – June 30 2011) Preliminary Findings

  2. Outline • Introduction • Community Selection and Recruitment process • School Engagement Process • Developing Coalition/Core Workgroups • Communications: • Press Release Template • Athena Forum • Learning Community • Funding • Summary

  3. Introduction • Survey posted on Athena from July 27 to August 3. • Received 22 responses

  4. Community Selection Process • Overall rating of collaboration in selection process

  5. Community Selection Process • What went well? • Data and maps, and technical assistance in using the data were helpful. • Good collaborative relationship with County and ESD made the selection process effective. • The learning community works well. • Support from the DBHR prevention system manager was helpful.

  6. Community Selection Process • What were the challenges? • Communication gaps • Required cash match • Learning curve about what PRI is; clarity of “requirements” vs. “suggestions” • Selection criteria – needs vs. readiness vs. communities that can pay • Relating to communities not chosen • Too many high-risk communities to choose from • Breaking the news to communities not chosen • Communities not chosen struggling to support services.

  7. Community Selection Process • What could DBHR have done? • Clear communication of financial expectations -brochures or checklist • Clearly articulate “community readiness” standards (develop assessment instrument) • Provide talking points for recruitment and communities losing funding • Recommendation for Cohort II • Start early (start talking to schools in fall) • Meet with community members, get input and communicate expectation of roles • Get decision makers involved

  8. School Engagement Process • ESD and schools were on board. • Existing relationship worked. • Challenge: • Matching requirement • School staff turn over • Timing – prefer fall instead of spring • Provide training to school staff

  9. Developing Coalitions/Core Workgroups • Most communities had an existing coalition. • Existing coalitions play key role in core workgroup. • Outreach most commonly began with the existing coalitions.

  10. Developing Coalitions/Core Workgroups • Current coalitions have diverse representations. • Business, health care professionals, and mental health services representatives are difficult to recruit.

  11. Developing Coalitions/Core Workgroups • Recommendations for Cohort II • Identify community champions; avoid membership comprised of partner agency professionals only • Designate leadership • Balance needs with readiness; choose communities with existing coalitions • Be patient in developing relationships – use informal meetings, community events, printed materials, newsletters, send representatives to various meeting…

  12. Press Release Template • What’s helpful? • Having a draft to start with • Dickenson quote • Suggestions for improvement • Highlight more positive aspects of the community • Be more localized and simpler • Be clear about what DBHR is and what change will PRI bring

  13. The Athena Forum • Over 50% of the respondents used Athena 5 or more times during the past 6 month. • Over 50% of the respondents have downloaded or read announcements/guidelines on Athena

  14. The Athena Forum • Most respondents found Athena to be difficult to use. • Challenges: • Difficult to navigate • Folders not intuitive • Don’t know how to upload documents • Suggestions: • Prefer to receive documents/links via email

  15. Learning Community Meetings • Most respondents always or usually receive needed information from meetings. • Suggestions: send meeting materials earlier

  16. Funding

  17. Funding • Cohort I funding (other than DBHR): • Drug Free Communities • School district, county, Family Policy Council, local fundraisers • Potential Cohort II funding: • Primarily DBHR • School district or other grant funds • One indicates will not participate unless more funding is available.

  18. Summary • Successes • Collaboration with community partners, county, ESD, OSPI, and DBHR • Using data to identify high-risk communities • Learning community • Challenges • Cash match requirement • Balancing needs with readiness • Using Athena Forum

More Related