Ellen M. Capwell

Stakeholder Participation in Evaluation

C ollaboration is a value that most public health practitioners generally accept. However, practitioners may also feel overwhelmed with the various approaches to involving stakeholders in the evaluation process. Overall, stakeholder participation and collaboration is viewed positively and is generally accepted by the evaluation community. Evidence indicates that stakeholder participation will improve the quality of evaluation results, but the particular circumstances and conditions must be carefully considered. In this issue, we will describe the different ways that stakeholders can be involved in evaluation, how it can be most useful, and how it is actually accomplished. Moreover, we would like to make the case that collaborative evaluation should be seen as a viable option in your evaluation toolbox.

Key Issues in Evaluation: Quantitative and Qualitative Methods and Research Design

A number of key issues frequently emerge in the practice of evaluation. One needs to be familiar with these issues to most effectively engage evaluation professionals in one’s program and to make appropriate inferences or interpretations from evaluation data. In this article, three of those background issues are discussed: qualitative research, quantitative research, and experimental design. Although not intended to be a comprehensive treatise on the subject, this article will cover the strengths and limitations of methodologies, what questions are possible to answer within these methodologies, and the influence of research designs on the inferences that can be drawn from data.

Marketing Health Educators to Employers: Survey Findings, Interpretations, and Considerations for the Profession

In July 2007, a market research report was produced by Hezel Associates on behalf of five sponsoring health education profession member organizations and the National Commission for Health Education Credentialing. The purpose of the survey was to learn about current or potential employers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward health educators and the health education profession and their future hiring practices. This article presents the background leading up to the production of this report, the major findings of the survey of employers, recommendations from the market research group regarding core messages, and implications for the profession having discovered for the first time information about employers’ understanding of professionally prepared health educators. The article discusses the umbrella and key messages that may be incorporated into a marketing plan and other recommendations by the firm that should assist health educators in marketing the profession. Furthermore, this article presents reactions by leaders in this field to these messages and recommendations and concludes with next steps in this project and a call for the overall need to market the profession of health education.

Professional Development Through Planning for and/or Participating in an Accreditation/Approval Review

The quality of delivery of health education services is connected to landmark events in the history of health education. Quality assurance is one type of professional development in which practicing health education specialists engage. This article presents the steps of an accreditation/approval process, brief overviews of the major accreditation/approval systems, and the opportunities within the accreditation/approval process for professional development.

Quality Assurance in Professional Preparation of Community/Public Health Education Specialists: Contributions of SABPAC

The Society for Public Health Education and American Association for Health Education Baccalaureate Program Approval Committee (SABPAC) provided a valuable service to the health education profession in the United States for 27 years. From 1987 to its sunset in 2014, SABPAC offered a voluntary process whereby undergraduate community/public health education professional preparation programs could seek review and evaluation of their programs against published national health education criteria. Those programs meeting SABPAC criteria were granted “Approval.” SABPAC approval was instituted as one way by which the health education profession could strive to promote consistent professional preparation in the field and ensure that health education graduates were prepared for contemporary workforce demands. Over the years, SABPAC chairs, committee members, and volunteers devoted countless hours reviewing self-studies and conducting on-site visits of professional preparation programs and documenting how they met SABPAC criteria and/or could enhance compliance with guidelines. Seeking SABPAC approval provided many program benefits. Recognizing that accreditation is the “gold standard” in education, the health education profession applied a thoughtful and researched process beginning in 2001 to transition from SABPAC approval to undergraduate accreditation through the Council on Education for Public Health. Three national task forces developed recommendations, conducted events to foster communication about the change, and assisted professional preparation programs to prepare for and seek the Council on Education for Public Health accreditation. This brief article documents the genesis, organization, and processes of SABPAC in the United States, until its sunset as a major contributor to quality assurance in health education for more than a quarter of a century.

Reflections From the Ivory Tower

One health educator reflects on a career shift from public health practitioner to college faculty. The opportunity arose through informal Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE) networking. Similarities between the practitioner and academic roles are noted in relation to politics, mentoring, service on committees, presentations, consultation, and chain of command. Notable differences are discussed in areas of hiring and job security, work rules, teaching versus administration, molding students versus reshaping adults, degree of focus on health content versus program process, amount of bureaucracy and red tape, and degree of freedom to advocate. Recommendations are included for successful transitions. Both roles have unique rewards.

An Interview with Dr. Laura Leviton, Leader in the Field of Evaluating Community Health Promotion Initiatives

This article summarizes a recent interview with Dr. Laura Leviton, Senior Program Officer in Re-search and Evaluation for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Dr. Leviton is also the immediate past president of the American Evaluation Association. With a wealth of experience in working with community health promotion initiatives, Dr. Leviton provides important insights, recommendations, and dreams for the future of the field. The authors’ questions are in italics, followed by Dr. Leviton’s responses.

Message from the Associate Editors

I n our last Evaluation in Practice article, we focused on various types and methodologies of participatory evaluation. In this issue of Health Promotion Practice, we are delighted to offer a real-life, cutting-edge example of a systematic method for actualizing a stakeholder-based approach to program evaluation. Chinman, Imm, and Wandersman, et al., have produced a planning method that is indispensable for evaluators, funders, and directors of community prevention programs. Getting to Outcomes (GTO) is a user-friendly guide that can help community groups, such as coalitions, navigate the maze of designing prevention and treatment programs that work. GTO is grounded in participatory evaluation theory but is tempered by many years of experience in evaluating community prevention programs for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) abuse. The authors persisted in their belief that GTO be hands-on and easily adapted to local community circumstances. GTO can be used by community groups to evaluate any number of health or social issues. The key to the success of the proposed methodology is its focus on goals and measurable outcomes. The user is guided through a series of accountability questions that by their very nature will help community coalitions and other groups develop programs for which they are accountable. In other words, the communities own the results. To increase accessibility, the GTO manual and all of its tools are available on the Web at http://www. stanford.edu/. It includes worksheets and instruments community groups can use to achieve the complex tasks of assessment, planning, implementation, and evaluation. The article that follows provides a clear explanation of the rationale behind the development of GTO as well as an overview of relevant evaluation theory. The strength of the article, however, lies in the inclusion of a case example of how one state is using the GTO process in a statewide prevention initiative. Readers are invited to follow through the 10 accountability questions used by the community coalitions to design and implement effective ATOD abuse prevention programs. A comprehensive table outlines these questions, the manual chapters, and appropriate tools that might be used to help answer the questions. Readers should look for future results about the effectiveness of GTO as a framework for evaluating comprehensive prevention programs.