TCE Board PresentationFebruary, 2006

Evaluating the

Initiative

Oakland, CA - Seattle, WA

2

Presentation Overview About PPH Intersection of PPH and MAPP Developing and using intermediate

indicators

3

PPH Approach

39 Partnershi

ps

PPH Initiative

Public Health

Departments

(14)

Community Groups

(39, 2-3 per health dept)

Program Office• Grants Management• Technical Assistance• Communication• Policy• Evaluation

4

Goals of PPH Initiative

5 goal areas Community group internal capacity

building Health department internal capacity

building Partnership development Community health improvement Policy and systems change

5

Multiple Levels to Consider

PPH Initiative Levels

In fras tru c tu re -leve l:In fo rm ation ab ou t P P H O ffice s tru c tu res to su p p ort g ran tees

an d ad van ce th e g oa ls o f th e p ro jec t

L oca l-leve l:L oca lly co llec ted in fo rm ation ab ou t each p artn ersh ip

In it ia t ive -leve l:A g g reg a te in fo rm ation ab ou t a ll 3 9 o f p a rtn ersh ip s

6

Key PPH Accomplishments Successful models for

public health partnerships Policy change activities

supported partnerships Partnership efforts are

being sustained Health departments learning

new ways of working with community

7MAPP & PPH:The Connection 8 PPH jurisdictions completed

some or all of MAPP PPH funded MAPP (minimal) PPH partnership key to to

implementation of MAPP in PPH sites

8

MAPP & PPH: Comparison Both start with partnerships and end with

improved health Both emphasize the health department

working with community Both need to accommodate the specific

contexts of a health department jurisdiction (demographics, geography, politics)

MAPP emphasizes assessment process and planning, PPH emphasized program development and policy change

9Developing Intermediate Indicators Used logic models and case

studies (descriptive data) Looked at intermediate steps and

ideal pathways Emphasized progress and change Looked at contribution rather than

attribution

10

•No paid staff

•No office

•Little/no resident engagement

•Unclear decision making structures

•Skilled, stable leadership

•Clear, appropriate governance structure

•Funding to sustain programs

•Ability to engage and mobilize the community

•Methods for building residents skills

•Strong alliances with other organizations

Goal 1: Strengthening Internal Capacities of Community Group

11

•Limited awareness of the benefits of working with community

•No support for staff to work with community

•Limited opportunities for residents to give input on planning and programs

•Organizational culture committed to working with community

•Workforce policies support staff working with community

•Multiple ways for residents to have input

•Resources dedicated to building residents skills

Goal 2: Enhance health department capacities to work with communities

12

•No/negative prior relationship between HD and community group

•Lack of trust

•No shared understanding of the purpose of the partnership

•No formalized structures for partnership

•Partnership viewed as positive and mutually beneficial

•Structures in place to facilitate working together

•Proven ability to share resources and jointly implement activities

•Ability to sustain partnership

Goal 3: Create sustainable partnerships

13

•Limited ability to carry out community health improvement activities

•Activities that focused on agency interventions, health education, and service delivery

•Limited programs or activities

•Partnership working jointly to implement sustainable activities and programs that have the potential to improve the health of the community

•Ability to address multiple community health issues and/or the broad determinants of health

Goal 4: Develop programs, services and/or activities aimed at improving health

14

•Partnership has successfully changed and/or enforced local policies

• Partnership has an experienced and savvy constituency to mobilize around community health issues

•Policy is integral part of health improvement strategies

Goal 5: Develop policies that support improved health

•No experience with policy and systems change activities

•No resident advocacy skills

•Little understanding of the meaning and purpose of policy and systems change

15

Policy & Systems Changes

Number of Changes

15

38

2619

30

10

20

30

40

None One Tw o or More*N=37

Num

ber

of

Par

tner

ship

s*

Grant Yr 2

Grant Yr 4

16

Summary A number of connections between MAPP

and PPH Intermediate indicators allow

documentation of change Evaluation of community-based efforts

need to focus on contribution rather than attribution

Contribution and linkages based on logic modeling and descriptive documentation

17

Contact Information

Clarissa HsuGroup Health Community Foundation1730 Minor Ave, Suite 1500Seattle, WA 98101206-287-4276Hsu.c@ghc.org

Websites:

http://www.ghcfoundation.org/fhealth.html

http://partnershipph.org/