Data Collection under ARRA Funding

All grantees were required to collect and submit core information on their program participants and performance for submission to NCOA’s database. All 47 grantees were able to comply with this requirement, but used a wide range of approaches to collect additional data from host sites and partners in their distribution networks (see Appendix K). Some grantees used centralized data collection where host sites and/or implementation sites submitted paper forms or Excel spreadsheets to a program coordinator at the state level who entered the data into the NCOA database. Other grantees used a decentralized approach where specified individuals at the regional and/or local level were responsible for entering data into the NCOA database, with the state providing oversight for quality assurance.

7.3.1 Data Collection Strategies: State Grantees

State grantees used a range of staffing and technical arrangements to support data collection activities, reflecting CDSMP program size, complexity, and the availability of state resources and infrastructure. For example:

 In Alaska, the program director—the state’s only designated CDSMP staff—collects and maintains, in an Access database, NCOA-required data and additional items used for evaluation, e.g., pre-post participant feedback, number of participant sick days/well days, trainer identification numbers, trainer certification/recertification dates. Information is also collected on clinical measures for diabetics (BMI, LDL, blood pressure, A1C at 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups).

 Oklahoma relies on the state’s in-house evaluation team to collect and maintain CDSMP data, and to conduct small participant surveys that address how participants find out about workshops, whether participants feel they are better able to deal with their conditions after taking the workshops, and how participants feel they have benefited with regard to enhanced capabilities.

 Colorado requires sites providing ARRA-funded CDSMP to submit information through a data portal established by a non-profit partner, Consortium for Older Adult Wellness. This is in addition to submission of data for the NCOA database. Most state grantees use CDSMP or other state staff to conduct and oversee data collection. However, two grantees—California and New York—contract with outside organizations for data collection and technical assistance. California contracts with Partners in Care Foundation (PICF), the state’s technical assistance provider for evidence-based programs, which monitors data from sites for fidelity. In New York, sites send their workshop data for review and data entry/management to the Quality and Technical Assistance Center (QTAC) at SUNY Albany,

which serves as the technical assistance arm of the state’s CDSMP program. The QTAC has developed a master database to enable collection and linkage of data across participants for research purposes. They are exploring options for a new online data entry system to improve ease of data collection and reporting.

Fourteen of the 47 state grantees collect only required the data elements. However, many states collect additional information for planning and research purposes, and may require more than one database. Two examples are Missouri and New Jersey:

 Missouri established a database for five evidence-based programs, including CDSMP, in 2008. Because the data used for each purpose were different and intended for different purposes, the state carried out dual data entry for CDSMP under the ARRA grant, entering data once for state purposes and again into the NCOA database.

 New Jersey has a centralized database and used ARRA funds to develop a supplemental database to maintain information on where workshops are offered, and about peer leaders and master trainers. The state reports that it receives requests for data from partners and the Commissioner of Health and Human Services. A staff person, who devotes 80 percent of her time to collecting and reviewing data, supports these activities. New Jersey’s Office of Minority and Cultural Health maintains another database with demographics on participants with limited English proficiency.

7.3.2 Data Collection Strategies: Host and Implementation Sites

Host and implementation sites are on the front line for data collection on their workshops that the sites then submit to regional coordinators or state grantees, which in turn submit the data to NCOA’s database. Michigan has developed data collection forms that can be scanned electronically to minimize burden to sites providing CDSMP in the community. This approach enables the state to more efficiently obtain information from all sites that provide CDSMP across the state.

Most site-level respondents, while they were not queried directly on the topic, did not mention difficulties collecting and reporting data on workshops. However, a small number of respondents from the site visits and telephone interviews did note that meeting the CDSMP data requirements could be challenging in some settings. One grantee with oversight of a mature CDSMP network emphasized the difficulties data collection can pose for community programs, stating:

It [data collection] is time consuming, often confusing, very labor intensive, so the state is looking to identify essential elements to collect on an ongoing basis. Tomando [Control de su Salud] is especially difficult for data collection as staff must collect data one-on-one with participants, many of whom have limited Spanish (or English) literacy.