Negotiating Diverse Contexts and Expectations in Stakeholder

Engagement

Sue Lin Yee, MA, MPH

National Center for Injury Prevention and ControlOffice of the Director

American Evaluation AssociationNovember 13, 2008

The findings of this presentation are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“The most basic question is not what is

best but who shall decide what is best.”

— Thomas Sowell

Patton’s Levels of Stakeholder Involvement*

• Inform: Kept informed, disseminate findings, generate interest

• Consult: Listened to, review & comment, anticipate problems, suggest priorities, enhance credibility of results

• Involve: Affirm importance, enhance appropriateness, utility, and establish credibility of evaluation

*Michael Q. Patton, “Utilization-Focused Evaluation , “ 4th Edition, 2008

Patton’s Levels of Stakeholder Involvement*

• Collaborate: Advise and recommend, feedback integrated to greatest extent possible, participate in meaningful decision-making, primary intended users have ownership in evaluation

• Empower: Direct the evaluation, offered options to inform decisions, use evaluation to build capacity and practice

*From Michael Q. Patton, “Utilization-Focused Evaluation , “ 4th Edition, 2008

Stakeholder Context: Why It Matters

• Context affects values, perspectives, priorities, expectations, and actions

• Influence based on varying personal and organizational contexts

• Stakeholder specific “currencies”

Stakeholder Context: Why It Matters

• Stakeholder context can influence – Evaluation design– Implementation– Use of findings

• Benefit is increased understanding of the social and political contexts of program and components

Managing Stakeholder Context

• Differences can create fear, mistrust, conflicts

• Explicit identification and discussion of issues can facilitate participation

• Provide a forum for sharing information about the evaluation

• Expect that stakeholder engagement may change due to evolution of the evaluation

ICRC Portfolio Evaluation Primary Stakeholders

• National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) Office of the Director (OD)

• Extramural Research Program Office (ERPO)

• External Peer Review Panel• NCIPC Board of Scientific Counselors

(BSC)

ICRC Portfolio Evaluation Secondary Stakeholders

• CDC-funded Injury Control Research Centers (ICRC)

• NCIPC divisions• ICRC Portfolio Evaluation Team

– CDC Project Team – MayaTech Corporation

ICRC Portfolio Evaluation Workgroup (IPEW)

• Guide planning and implementation of evaluation

• Provide feedback on key documents • Suggest strategies on dissemination of

information from the evaluation• ICRC Evaluation Team reserved the right to

make final decisions

Stakeholder Involvement on IPEW

• ICRC Evaluation Team (E)• NCIPC Office of the Director (Varied)• Extramural Research Program (Inf)• Injury Control Research Centers (Inv)• Peer review panel chair person (Ct)• Previous portfolio reviews (Inv)• NCIPC divisions (Inf)• Other CDC center programs (Inv)• Other CDC evaluators (Inv)

Guiding Questions

What is the value of the ICRC portfolio?

How has the ICRC program built the

injury field?Value outside of CDC

and ICRCs

Advantage of

programs vs.

grants

How has the ICRC program affected injury outcomes?

Contributions

toward behavior

al modificati

on

Influences on

policy and

legislation

Discussion & Questions