Evaluating community tobacco use prevention coalitions

Three Years of Evaluating Community Tobacco Prevention Coalitions: Lessons Learned

“…For present coalitions, the correlation between scores in 2004 and 2005 was not statistically significant. This finding is consistent with Reinert et al [20], who also found that the coalitions longest in existence were not necessarily best in functioning. Turnover in coalition leaders and board members probably contributed to this lack of consistency across time.…”

“…Contracts should dictate the evaluation. For example, in 2003, the evaluation instrument contained 24 items rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (bad) to 5 (exceptionally good), according to specified criteria [20]. However, some coalition leaders complained that they did not realize that they would be evaluated on some of these criteria.…”

“…The internal program evaluator totaled the ratings of the 24 (2003) or 18 measurable categories (2004 and 2005) to obtain a final evaluation for each coalition. In 2003, the evaluator converted this score into a letter grade that could range from A to F; this letter grade had funding ramifications [20]. In 2004 and 2005, the evaluator converted this score into a rating of exceeds, meets, nearly meets, or fails to meet expectations.…”

Programmatic Evaluation of College Initiatives to Reduce Tobacco Use

“…The present evaluation of college initiatives is similar to one of community coalitions in that both assessments provided specialized feedback on how to improve, and both allowed the coalitions to tailor the activities to fit their circumstances [12]. An advantage of the Reinert et al evaluation of community coalitions was that scores carried funding ramifications, an aspect that probably increased the power of the feedback and, ultimately, the functioning of the anti-tobacco coalitions [12]. In contrast, the present categories conveyed information about how well the college initiatives met expectations, but carried no direct funding ramifications.…”

The Logic Model in Action against Tobacco Use: A Case Study

“…An external evaluation of the structural viability of the community coalitions included written guidelines for the evaluator, a specific letter grade (A to F) for each coalition, and specific feedback for each coalition about how to earn a higher grade in the future. Grades carried funding ramifications for the coalition [28]. An external evaluator can take both quantity and quality into account when conducting an evaluation.…”