The key aspects of the Capstone project that will likely be sustained are the use of process and outcome evaluation tools. The majority of our efforts throughout the year focused on developing these tools collaboratively with staff members, ensuring they were easy to use, feasible to implement, and in- line with the realities of DV prevention work in New Hanover. Overall, our Capstone team’s efforts will be sustained through ongoing utilization of the evaluation tools and protocols among EVOLVE!
NC DELTA 2011-2012 Capstone Summary Report, page 40 Wilmington members. Data-driven program improvement will increase the likelihood that evaluation will be institutionalized into EVOLVE! Wilmington’s organizational climate and primary prevention programming.
There are several key factors that NCCADV should consider when planning for the long-term sustainability of local evaluation by CCR teams. The first is that program champions within the CCR play an integral role in sustainability. Through our close partnership with Reverend Houston, he was able to galvanize CCR members to participate in tool development and attend the evaluation workshop. Since these CCR members are the staff that will eventually be institutionalizing the use of the evaluation tools within the organization, Reverend Houston’s ability to create buy-in was and will continue to be an important component of sustainability.
Additionally, continued collaboration with CCR members conducting evaluation will be
important. Although the evaluation toolkits were developed with agencies and stakeholders on multiple levels, these tools should be seen as living documents in order to increase sustainability. As the CCR begins to use the evaluation toolkits in real world settings, it will be important for NCCADV to work closely with CCR members to understand what components of the process and outcome surveys are effective and what components are challenging or confusing for respondents. The CCR will initially require ongoing technical assistance from NCCADV in order to address these issues by revising the toolkits.
Potential funding cuts and delays will continue to jeopardize the institutionalization of local CCR evaluation. Although there is little that NCCADV can do to directly diminish this threat to sustainability, they can develop alternative funding mechanisms to prepare for the possibility of funding loss. Having a backup plan for how Reverend Houston will continue to be paid through other grants will provide increased stability to the CCR and mitigate the effect of funding loss on sustainability. NCCADV should plan for sustainability by addressing these key factors as they move forward with the DELTA initiative.
NC DELTA 2011-2012 Capstone Summary Report, page 41
Conclusion & Recommended Next Steps
Through this Capstone experience, we felt that our activities enhanced the capacity of our community partners to improve their ongoing work in New Hanover County. Each deliverable significantly contributed to this collective goal through well-defined benefits for our community partners. We reinforced the impact of our deliverables through successfully planning for sustainability and community engagement.
The next step in the process of empowering local providers to effectively evaluate prevention programs is to continue to train local DV prevention staff. While current staff have been trained in process and outcome evaluation, turnover may undermine the effectiveness of our Capstone work. In the future, it would be most beneficial to create webinars and online tutorials on assessment and evaluation that can be disseminated to future staff in New Hanover County, but that can also be
disseminated to other organizations with similar programs and capacities. Additionally, our county level community partners would benefit from trainings on how to tailor community programs based on the community assessment and feedback from their ongoing evaluations. NCCADV has made these next steps a priority for the DELTA Project Prevention Coordinator in the future. We are immensely grateful for the support of our community partners and for the time and dedication of all those who contributed to our project, and we enthusiastically anticipate the successful use of these items by EVOLVE!
NC DELTA 2011-2012 Capstone Summary Report, page 42
References
American Psychological Association. (2012). Glossary of Psychological Terms. Retrieved 2/2/2012, from http://www.apa.org/research/action/glossary.aspx.
Casey, J., Carlin, M., Reilly, K., & Wilkes, N. (2011). Capstone summary report: Team DELTA 2010-2011. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). The DELTA program: At a glance. Atlanta: Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/DELTA_AAG-a.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). CDC fact sheet: Understanding intimate partner violence. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Division of Violence Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/IPV_factsheet-a.pdf
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Domestic violence prevention enhancement and leadership through alliances (DELTA). Retrieved 11/1/2011, from
http://www.cdc.gov.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/violenceprevention/DELTA/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011b). Principals of community engagement: Second edition. Retrieved November, 13, 2011, from
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/communityengagement/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1997). Principles of community engagement. Retrieved November, 9, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov.libproxy.lib.unc.edu/phppo/pce/part1.htm Crooks, C. V., Goodall, G. R., Hughes, R., Jaffe, P. G., & Baker, L. L. (2007). Engaging men and boys in
preventing violence against women. Violence Against Women, 13(3), 217-239.
Foshee, V. A., Bauman, K.E., Arriaga, X.B., Helms, R.W., Koch, G.G., & Linder, G.F. (1998). An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence prevention program. American Journal of Public Health, 88(1), 45-50.
General Assembly. (1993). Declaration on the elimination of violence against women.104(48)
Guterman, N. B. (2004). Advancing Prevention Research on Child Abuse, Youth Violence, and Domestic Violence: Emerging Strategies and Issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(3), 299-321. Hawkins, J. D., Catalano, R.F., & Arthur, M.W. (2002). Promoting science-based prevention in
communities. Addictive Behaviors, 27(27), 951-976.
Healthy Carolinians. (2012). Community health assessment. Retrieved February 25, 2012, from http://www.healthycarolinians.org/assessment/guidebook.aspx
Hickman, L. J., Jaycox, L. H., & Aronoff, J. (2004). Dating Violence among Adolescents: Prevalence, Gender Distribution, and Prevention Program Effectiveness. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 5(2), 123-142.
Israel, B. A. (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health Jossey-Bass Inc Pub. Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. The Lancet, 359(9315), 1423-1429. Krieger, N. (2003). Does racism harm health? did child abuse exist before 1962? on explicit questions,
critical science, and current controversies: An ecosocial perspective. American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 194.
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The world report on violence and health. The Lancet, 360(9339), 1083-1088.
Martin, S. L., Coyne-Beasley, T., Hoehn, M., Mathew, M., Runyan, C.W., Orton, S., et al. (2009). Primary Prevention of Violence Against Women: Training Needs of Violence Practitioners. Violence Against Women, 15(1), 44-56.
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education & Behavior, 15(4), 351.
NC DELTA 2011-2012 Capstone Summary Report, page 43 Mikton, C. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence against women: Taking action and
generating evidence. Injury Prevention, 16(5), 359.
Mitchell-Clark, K., & Autry, A. (2004). Preventing Family Violence: Lessons from the community engagement initiative.
Moracco, K, B. (2012). Evaluability assessments and logic models. Powerpoint presentation presented in HBHE741, Chapel Hill, NC.
NCCADV. (2011). The DELTA project. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from http://nccadv.org/delta_project.htm.
Patton, M. (2002). Utilization-focused evaluation. Evaluation Models, 425-438.
Promundo and ICRW. (2011). Evolving men - international men and gender equality survey (IMAGES). Rabin, B., Brownson, R., Haire-Joshu, D., Kreuter, M., Weaver, N. (2008). A Glossary for Dissemination
and Implementation Research in Health. Journal of Public Health Management & Practice 14(2), 117-123
Ricardo, C., & Barker, G. (2008). Men, masculinities, sexual exploitation and sexual violence: A literature review and call for action. Rio De Janeiro: Promundo/MenEngage Alliance,
Rosenberg, M., Butchart, A., Mercy, J., Narasimhan, V., Waters, H., Marshall, M., . . . Alleyne, G. (2006). Disease control priorities in developing countries. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries,
Shediak-Rizkallah, M. & Bone, L. (1998). Planning for the sustainability of community-based health programs: conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice and policy. Health Education Research 13(1), 87-109.
Smith, M. D. (1994). Enhancing the quality of survey data on violence against women. Gender & Society, 8(1), 109.
Wegs, C., Turner, K., & Randall-David, B. (2003). Effective training in reproductive health: Course design and delivery. Reference manual. Chapel Hill, NC, Ipas.
Whitaker, D. J., Morrison, S., Lindquist, C., Hawkins, S. R., O'Neil, J. A., Nesius, A. M., et al. (2006). A critical review of interventions for the primary prevention of perpetration of partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 11(2), 151-166.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action: Logic model development guide. Battle Creek, MI: Kellogg Foundation.
NC DELTA 2011-2012 Capstone Summary Report, page 44