Michael Baizerman

Special Issue

Using Evaluation Capacity Building (ECB) to Interpret Evaluation Strategy and Practice in the United States National Tobacco Control Program (Ntcp): A Preliminary Study

Authors:
Pages:
199-223

The Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports state programs for the prevention and control of tobacco use through the National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP). OSH provides the NTCP with expert guidance and technical assistance on tobacco use control and disease surveillance as well as evaluation of tobacco control programs. These services fit national health goals and provide data to inform national and state policy making and program planning. However, the NTCP's delivery of services, achievement of goals, and evaluation of efforts is hindered by fluctuations in dedicated state funds to support tobacco use prevention and control programs. To maximize effort and resources, evaluation capacity building (ECB) is a strategy for strengthening evaluation services, program efficiency, and program effectiveness, that is, program improvement. This article interprets NTCP using an ECB frame to learn the utility of this approach for making suggestions for structural and practice changes that lead to program improvement.

Fall

Managing Evaluation: Responding to Common Problems with a 10-Step Process

Authors:
Pages:
103-123

There is now a clear choice of frameworks for managing program evaluation—the managing of one or more studies or the managing of an evaluation capacity building structure and process. This is a distinction with a difference, and this article conceptualizes that difference and shows how the two frameworks understand three problems common to program evaluation: (a) lack of systematic integration within a larger program improvement process, (b) difficulty in finding an appropriate evaluator, and (c) lack of appropriate conceptualization prior to the inception of the evaluation study. Two practice-based approaches to these problems are presented and interpreted using the two frameworks. These frameworks show clear distinctions and differences between the two managerial approaches. These are practice-tested approaches developed over 30 years of doing and managing evaluations in an evaluation unit in the United States, where there are seemingly clear differences with Canada in at least the public sector and in practices around stakeholder participation in relation to use practices. Our experience shows that program managers and managers of program evaluation services have clear choices in how they manage program evaluation in the public and nonprofit sectors across public health and other human services, and these choices have implications for organizational development, managing an evaluation unit, and interorganizational relations.