Slide 1
Practical Program Evaluation—Using CDC’s Evaluation Framework
By:
Thomas J. Chapel, MA, MBA
Office of the Director
Office of Workforce and Career Development
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Slide 2
•	Today…
•	Present CDC Evaluation Framework steps and standards
•	Show central role of “program description” and “evaluation focus” steps
•	Discuss simple logic model(s) for an immunization program
•	Show how logic model helps with key evaluation tasks
•	Set-up work for Session 2 in the Fall

Slide 3
Defining Evaluation	
•	Evaluation is  the systematic investigation of the merit, worth, or significance of any “object”
						Michael Scriven

•	Program is any organized public health action/activity implemented to achieve some result

Slide 4
Integrating Processes to Achieve Continuous Quality Improvement

Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) cycle.
Planning—What actions will best reach our goals and objectives.
Performance measurement— How are we doing?
Evaluation—Why are we doing well or poorly?

(circle chart)- What do we do? – How do we do it? – How are we doing? – Why are we doing well or poorly?

Slide 5
Framework for Program Evaluation

Figure1. Recommended for framework for program evaluation
(circle chart) Steps

Engage stakeholders- Describe the program – Focus the evaluation design- Gather credible evidence- Justify conclusions- Ensure use and share lessons learned

Standards:
Utility
Feasibility
Propriety
Accuracy

Slide 6
Underlying Logic of Steps

•	No eval is good unless… results are used to make a difference
•	No results are used unless… a market has been created prior to creating the product
•	No market is created unless…. the eval is well-focused, including most relevant and useful questions
•	And…

Slide 7 
Establishing the Best Focus Means…

•	Framework Step 1:  Identifying who cares about our program besides us?  Do they define program and “success” as we do?”

•	Framework Step 2: What are milestones and markers on the roadmap to my main PH outcomes?

Slide 8
The Four Standards

No one “right” evaluation. Instead, best choice at each step is options that maximize:
•	Utility:  Who needs the info from this evaluation and what info do they need?
•	Feasibility:   How much money, time, and effort can we put into this? 
•	Propriety:  Who needs to be involved in the evaluation to be ethical? 
•	Accuracy:  What design will lead to accurate information?

Slide 9
Practical Program Evaluation

Constructing Simple Logic Models

Slide 10
You Don’t Ever Need a Logic Model, BUT, You Always Need a Program Description

Don’t jump into planning or eval without clarity on:
•	The big “need” your program is to address
•	The key target group(s) who need to take action
•	The kinds of actions they need to take (your intended outcomes or objectives) 
•	Activities needed to meet those outcomes 
•	“Causal” relationships between activities and outcomes

Slide 11
Logic Models and Program Description

•	Logic Models :  Graphic depictions of the relationship between your program’s activities and its intended effects

Slide 12
•	Linking Planning, Evaluation and Performance Measurement
(Table chart)

Plan- Actions/Tactics- Objectives- Goals

Eval- Activites- ST or MT Outcomes- LT Outcomes or Impacts

PM-
Process Measures- Progress Measures- Impl. Measures 
Outcome Measures- Impact Measures- Key Performance Indicators- Success Factors

Slide 13 
Step 2: Describing the Program: Complete Logic Model
Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development
Slide 14
What the program and its staff actually do
Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide 15
Results of activities: Who/what will change?
Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide 16
Resource “platform” for the program
(Tangible products of activities)

Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide  17
Moderators: Contextual factors that will facilitate or hinder getting our outcomes
Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide 18

Contextual Factors
•	Political
•	Economic
•	Social
•	Technological

Slide 19
Practical Program Evaluation
Logic Model Case Illustration

Slide 20
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention

•	Lead poisoning is widespread environmental hazard facing young children, especially in older inner-city areas. 
•	Main sources of lead poisoning in children are paint and dust in older homes with lead-based paint. 
•	Effects ameliorated through a combination of medical and nutritional interventions.  But, ultimately, source must be contained/ eliminated through renovation or removal of the lead-based paint by professionals, although some reduction possible through intensive housekeeping practices.   
•	Programs receiving CDC money aim to: screen children, identify those with elevated blood lead levels (EBLL), assess  environments for lead sources, and case manage both their medical treatment and the correction of their environment.  
•	The grant money cannot directly pay for medical care or for renovation of homes.

Slide 21 
Constructing Logic Models:  List Activities and Outcomes by…

1.	Examining program descriptions, MISSIONS, VISIONS, PLANS, ETC and extracting these from the narrative, OR
2.	Starting with outcomes, ask “how to” in order to generate the activities which produce them, OR
3.	Starting with activities, ask “so what” in order to generate the outcomes that are expected to result

Slide 22
Then…Do Some Sequencing…
•	Divide the activities into 2 or more columns based on their logical sequence.  Which activities have to occur before other activities can occur?
•	Do same with the outcomes. Which outcomes have to occur before other outcomes can occur?

Slide 23
Listing Activities and Outcomes: Lead Poisoning

Activities
Outreach 
Screening
Case management
Referral for medical tx
Identification of kids with elevated  lead (EBLL)
Environmental assessment
Referral for env clean-up
Family training

Effects/Outcomes
Lead source identified
Families adopt in-home techniques
Providers treats EBLL kids 
Housing Authority eliminates lead source
EBLL reduced
Developmental “slide” stopped
Q of L improved

Slide 24
Global Logic Model: Childhood Lead Poisoning Program

Early Activities
If we do…
Outreach
Screening
ID of elevated kids

Later Activities
And we do…
Case mgmt of EBLL kids
Refer EBLL kids for medical treatment
Train family in in-home techniques
Assess environment of EBLL child
Refer  environment for clean-up

Early Outcomes
Then….
 EBLL kids get medical treatment
Family performs in-home techniques
Lead source identified
Environment gets cleaned up
Lead source removed

Later Outcomes
And then…
EBLL reduced
Develop’l slide stopped
Quality of life improves

Slide 25
Sometimes, Less is More…

•	A simple table-format logic model may be all you need for many audiences
•	BUT, for comprehensive description, may need to add inputs and outputs

Slide 26

Lead Poisoning: Sample Inputs and Outputs

Inputs Needed for Activities
Funds
Trained staff
Relationships with orgs for med tx and env clean-up
Legal authority to screen

Outputs of Activities
Pool (#) of eligible kids
Pool (#) of screened kids
Referrals (#) to medical treatment
Pool (#) of “leaded” homes
Referrals (#) for clean-up

Slide 27

Global Logic Model: Childhood Lead Poisoning Program

Inputs
Funds
Trained staff
R’ships with orgs for med tx and clean up
Legal authority

Early Activities 
Outreach
Screening
ID of elevated kids

Later activities
Do  case mgmt
Refer for medical treatment
Train family in in-home techniques
Assess environ’t 
Refer house for clean-up

Outputs
Pool (#) of eligible kids
Pool (#) of screened kids
Referrals (#) to medical treatment
Pool (#) of “leaded” homes
Referrals (#) for clean-up

Early Outcomes
EBLL kids get medical treatment
Family performs in-home techniques
Lead source identified
Environ cleaned up
Lead source removed

Later Outcomes
EBLL reduced
Develop’l slide stopped
Quality of life improves

Slide 28
For Planning and Evaluation “Causal” Arrows Can Help

•	Not  a different logic model, but same elements in different format
•	Arrows can go from:
•	Activities to other activities:  Which activities feed which other activities?
•	Activities to outcomes:  Which activities produce which intended outcomes? 
•	Early effects/outcomes to later ones: Which early outcomes produce which later outcomes

Slide 29
Lead Poisoning: “Causal” Roadmap
(graph chart)

Activities:
Outreach-Screening- ID kids with EBLL-
-Case Management:
Do Environment Assessment
Train Families
Refer for Medical treatement

Outcomes:

Do Environment Assessment- ID Source and Refer for clean up- Lead Source Removed-Reducing EBLLs
Train Families- Family Performs in-home techiniques- Reducing EBLLs
Refer for Medical treatement- Medical Management- Reducing EBLLs

Slide 30
Applying Teaching  Points to Immunization Example

Slide 31
Immunization Example—Activities and Outcomes
Activities
If we do this….
Coalitions and partnerships
SOPs and regulations
Disease surveillance
Assessment
Program planning and evaluation
Communication and health promo channels
VFC
"Supply" - related policy activities 
Providered 
AFIX
Regisitry
Perinatal hep B
"Demand" - related policy activities
Parent ed

Outcomes
Then this change will occur
Supportive policy
Increased provider incentives
Change provider KAB/motivation
Increased parent incentives

Change parent
KAB/motivation
Changes in provider practice
Adequate viable vaccine supply
Increased access
Reduced missed opportunities
Increased demand
Increased vaccination 
Decreased VPD

Slide 32
Example—Table Format

Immunization Example—Activities and Outcomes
Activities
If we do this….
Coalitions and partnerships
SOPs and regulations
Disease surveillance
Assessment
Program planning and evaluation
Communication and health promo channels
VFC
"Supply" - related policy activities 
Providered 
AFIX
Regisitry
Perinatal hep B
"Demand" - related policy activities
Parent ed

Outcomes
Then this change will occur
Supportive policy
Increased provider incentives
Change provider KAB/motivation
Increased parent incentives

Change parent
KAB/motivation
Changes in provider practice
Adequate viable vaccine supply
Increased access
Reduced missed opportunities
Increased demand
Increased vaccination 
Decreased VPD

Slide 33
Example “Road map”

Inputs: If we have this: Budget
Activities: We can do this : Coalitions and partnerships
And this: VFC; And then this: Increased provider incentives
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this: Adequate visible vaccine supply
And then this: Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Staff
Activities: We can do this: SOPs and Regulations 
And this: "Supply" related policy; which will result in this: Supportive policy
And then this: Increased provider incentives
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this: Increased access; Increased vaccination= Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Legal authority
Activities: We can do this: Disease surveillance
And this: Providered; And then this: Change provider KAB/ motivation
Outcomes: And then this :Changes in provider practice; and then this: Increased access, Reduced missed opportunities;
And then this Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Evidence
Activities:We can do this:Assessment
And this: AFIX, Registry; and then this: Change  provider KAB/motivation
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this:  Increased access, Reduced missed opportunities;
And then this Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Network of local orgs and agencies
Activities:We can do this: Program planning/eval
And this: Perinatal  B 
Outcomes:And then this: Increased demand, Decreased VPD

Activities:We can do this: Communication and health promo channels
And this:" Demand" related policy activities - supportive policy- Increased parent incentives
And this: Parented- Change parent KAB/ motivation
Outcomes:And then this: Increased demand, Decreased VPD

Slide 34
Can Emphasize Any Part of Program for Planning/Eval

•	Where am I spending the most?
•	Where am I concerned the most?
•	Where are my big opportunities/new areas?
•	Where are my big successes?

Slide 35
Example—Perinatal Hep B “Zoom-In”
(chart example)

Inputs: budget
Activities: Engage and communicate with partners/stakeholders, Assessment of situation
Short-Term outcomes; Supportive regulatory and policy environment is created, Supportive PCP office environment and practice is created

Inputs: Staff
Activities: Develop/ compile education and communications materials
Short-Term outcomes: Pregnant women are screened

Inputs: Legal authority and environment
Activities: Educate State and staff providers, Educate Parents, Public
Short-Term outcomes: Timely identification of women and their infants
Mid-Term outcomes: Positive women are case managed, referred, treated, Positive women charge risk behavior
Long-Term outcomes: Reductions in perinatal hepatitis B

Inputs: Organization relationships
Activities: Condut program planning and case management, Develop SOPs
Short-Term outcomes: Timely prophylaxis initiated and completed in infants of + women
Mid-Term outcomes: Infants of positive women are case managed and complete followup treatement
Long-Term outcomes: Reduction in perinatal hepatitis B

Slide 36
Logic Models make the program theory clear, not true!

Slide 37
Logic Models Take Time…So Be Sure to Use Them

•	Not worth it as “ends in themselves”
•	But can pay off big in evaluation:
•	Clarity with stakeholders
•	Setting evaluation focus

Slide 38
Which S’holders Matter Most?

Who is
•	Affected by the program?
•	Involved in program operations?
•	Intended users of evaluation findings?

Of these, who do we most need to:
Enhance credibility?
Implement program changes?
Advocate for changes?
Fund, authorize, expand program?

Slide 39 
Lead Poisoning: “Causal” Roadmap
(graph chart)

Activities:
Outreach-Screening- ID kids with EBLL-
-Case Management:
Do Environment Assessment
Train Families
Refer for Medical treatement

Outcomes:

Do Environment Assessment- ID Source and Refer for clean up- Lead Source Removed-Reducing EBLLs
Train Families- Family Performs in-home techiniques- Reducing EBLLs
Refer for Medical treatement- Medical Management- Reducing EBLLs

Slide 40
Using the Logic Model with Stakeholders
Do they agree/disagree with:
•	The activities and outcomes depicted?
•	The “roadmap”?
•	Which outcomes = program “success”? 
•	How much progress on outcomes = program “success”?
•	Choices of data collection/analysis methods?

Slide 41 
Applying Teaching Points to Immunization Example

Slide 42

Example “Road map”

Inputs: If we have this: Budget
Activities: We can do this : Coalitions and partnerships
And this: VFC; And then this: Increased provider incentives
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this: Adequate visible vaccine supply
And then this: Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Staff
Activities: We can do this: SOPs and Regulations 
And this: "Supply" related policy; which will result in this: Supportive policy
And then this: Increased provider incentives
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this: Increased access; Increased vaccination= Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Legal authority
Activities: We can do this: Disease surveillance
And this: Providered; And then this: Change provider KAB/ motivation
Outcomes: And then this :Changes in provider practice; and then this: Increased access, Reduced missed opportunities;And then this Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Evidence
Activities:We can do this:Assessment
And this: AFIX, Registry; and then this: Change  provider KAB/motivation
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this:  Increased access, Reduced missed opportunities;
And then this Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Network of local orgs and agencies
Activities:We can do this: Program planning/eval
And this: Perinatal  B 
Outcomes:And then this: Increased demand, Decreased VPD

Activities:We can do this: Communication and health promo channels
And this:" Demand" related policy activities - supportive policy- Increased parent incentives
And this: Parented- Change parent KAB/ motivation
Outcomes:And then this: Increased demand, Decreased VPD

Slide 43

Example—Perinatal Hep B “Zoom-In”
(chart example)

Inputs: budget
Activities: Engage and communicate with partners/stakeholders, Assessment of situation
Short-Term outcomes; Supportive regulatory and policy environment is created, Supportive PCP office environment and practice is created

Inputs: Staff
Activities: Develop/ compile education and communications materials
Short-Term outcomes: Pregnant women are screened

Inputs: Legal authority and environment
Activities: Educate State and staff providers, Educate Parents, Public
Short-Term outcomes: Timely identification of women and their infants
Mid-Term outcomes: Positive women are case managed, referred, treated, Positive women charge risk behavior
Long-Term outcomes: Reductions in perinatal hepatitis B

Inputs: Organization relationships
Activities: Condut program planning and case management, Develop SOPs
Short-Term outcomes: Timely prophylaxis initiated and completed in infants of + women
Mid-Term outcomes: Infants of positive women are case managed and complete followup treatement
Long-Term outcomes: Reduction in perinatal hepatitis B

Slide 44
Evaluation Can Be About Anything
•	Evaluation can focus on any/all parts of the logic model
•	Evaluation questions can pertain to
•	Boxes---did this component occur as expected
•	Arrows---what was the relationship between components

Slide 45
Did we get the inputs we needed/were promised?
Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide 46
Were activities and outputs implemented as intended? How much? Who received?
Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide 47

Which outcomes occurred? How much outcome occurred
Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide 48
Did we account for moderators? Is there evidence of contextual barriers or facilitators?

Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide 49
(How) was implementation quality related to inputs?
Inputs- Activities- Outputs- Short-term Effects/Outcomes- Intermediate 

Did outcomes occur because of our activities and outputs?

Effects/Outcomes-Long-term Effects/Outcomes
Context 
Assumptions
Stage of Development

Slide 50
Step 3.  Some Typical Evaluation Emphases
•	Implementation (Process)
Is program in place as intended? 
•	Effectiveness (Outcome)
Is program achieving its intended short-, mid, and/or long-term effects/outcomes?
•	Efficiency 
How much “product” is produced for given level of inputs/resources?
•	Causal Attribution 
 Is progress on outcomes due to your program?

Slide 51
•	Setting Focus: Some Rules
Based on “utility” standard:
•	Purpose:  Toward what end is the evaluation being conducted?
•	User:  Who wants the info and what are they interested in? 
•	Use: How will they use the info?

Slide 52

(Some) Potential Purposes

•	Show accountability
•	Test program implementation
•	“Continuous” program improvement
•	Increase the knowledge base
•	Other…
•	Other…

Slide 53

Deciding on the “Right” Focus: “Harvesting” Step 1…
Needs of Key S’holders from Step 1: 
•	What are key s’holders most interested in? 
•	Must I include this in my evaluation focus?

Slide 54

“Reality Checking” the Focus

Based on “feasibility” standard:
•	Stage of Development: How long has the program been in existence?
•	Program Intensity: How intense is the program?  How much impact is reasonable to expect? 
•	Resources:  How much time, money, expertise are available?

Slide 55
Some Evaluation Scenarios

•	Scenario I:  At Year 1, other communities want to adopt your model but want to know “what are they in for”

Slide 56
•	Scenario 1:
•	Purpose:  Examine program implementation 
•	User:  The “other community”
•	Use:  To make a determination, based on your experience, whether they want to adopt this project or not

Slide 57

Lead Poisoning: “Causal” Roadmap
(graph chart)

Activities:
Outreach-Screening- ID kids with EBLL-
-Case Management:
Do Environment Assessment
Train Families
Refer for Medical treatement

Outcomes:

Do Environment Assessment- ID Source and Refer for clean up- Lead Source Removed-Reducing EBLLs
Train Families- Family Performs in-home techiniques- Reducing EBLLs
Refer for Medical treatement- Medical Management- Reducing EBLLs

Slide 58
Some Evaluation Scenarios

•	Scenario II:  At Year 5, declining state revenues mean you need to justify to legislators the importance of your efforts so as to continue funds.

Slide 59
Scenario 2:

Purpose:  Determine program impact
User:  Your org and/or the legislators
Use:  
•	You want to muster evidence to prove to legislators you are effective enough to warrant funding, or
•	Legislators want you to show evidence that proves sufficient effectiveness to warrant funding

Slide 60
Lead Poisoning: “Causal” Roadmap
(graph chart)

Activities:
Outreach-Screening- ID kids with EBLL-
-Case Management:
Do Environment Assessment
Train Families
Refer for Medical treatement

Outcomes:

Do Environment Assessment- ID Source and Refer for clean up- Lead Source Removed-Reducing EBLLs
Train Families- Family Performs in-home techiniques- Reducing EBLLs
Refer for Medical treatement- Medical Management- Reducing EBLLs

Slide 61

Immunization Example

•	Think about some “pressures” to evaluate
•	Where is the pressure coming from?
•	Who will use the data?
•	What will they use it for?

•	Thinking about that: What part(s) of the model most need to be part of the evaluation?

Slide 62

Example “Road map”

Inputs: If we have this: Budget
Activities: We can do this : Coalitions and partnerships
And this: VFC; And then this: Increased provider incentives
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this: Adequate visible vaccine supply
And then this: Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Staff
Activities: We can do this: SOPs and Regulations 
And this: "Supply" related policy; which will result in this: Supportive policy
And then this: Increased provider incentives
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this: Increased access; Increased vaccination= Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Legal authority
Activities: We can do this: Disease surveillance
And this: Providered; And then this: Change provider KAB/ motivation
Outcomes: And then this :Changes in provider practice; and then this: Increased access, Reduced missed opportunities;And then this Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Evidence
Activities:We can do this:Assessment
And this: AFIX, Registry; and then this: Change  provider KAB/motivation
Outcomes: And then this: Changes in provider practice; And then this:  Increased access, Reduced missed opportunities;
And then this Increased vaccination = Decreased VPD

Inputs :If we have this: Network of local orgs and agencies
Activities:We can do this: Program planning/eval
And this: Perinatal  B 
Outcomes:And then this: Increased demand, Decreased VPD

Activities:We can do this: Communication and health promo channels
And this:" Demand" related policy activities - supportive policy- Increased parent incentives
And this: Parented- Change parent KAB/ motivation
Outcomes:And then this: Increased demand, Decreased VPD

Slide 63
Example—Perinatal Hep B “Zoom-In”
(chart example)

Inputs: budget
Activities: Engage and communicate with partners/stakeholders, Assessment of situation
Short-Term outcomes; Supportive regulatory and policy environment is created, Supportive PCP office environment and practice is created

Inputs: Staff
Activities: Develop/ compile education and communications materials
Short-Term outcomes: Pregnant women are screened

Inputs: Legal authority and environment
Activities: Educate State and staff providers, Educate Parents, Public
Short-Term outcomes: Timely identification of women and their infants
Mid-Term outcomes: Positive women are case managed, referred, treated, Positive women charge risk behavior
Long-Term outcomes: Reductions in perinatal hepatitis B

Inputs: Organization relationships
Activities: Condut program planning and case management, Develop SOPs
Short-Term outcomes: Timely prophylaxis initiated and completed in infants of + women
Mid-Term outcomes: Infants of positive women are case managed and complete followup treatement
Long-Term outcomes: Reduction in perinatal hepatitis B

Slide 64
Practical Program Evaluation
Coming! This Fall…

Slide 65
Fall Training Session

•	Reaffirm/reinforce today’s points
•	Work some cases
•	Help you:
•	Use simple logic model
•	Choose an appropriate focus 
•	Construct evaluation questions/indicators
•	Give thought to data collection

Slide 66
•	In Short…

Slide 67
Upfront Small Investment…

•	Clarified relationship of activities and outcomes
•	Ensured clarity and consensus with stakeholders
•	Helped define the right focus for my evaluation
•	Clarified vision, mission, goals, objectives, and their interconnection
•	Helped me clarify my “critical path”
•	Help me cut to the “heart” of my program and…
•	How best to get there

Slide 68
Practical Program Evaluation
•	Life Post-Session

Slide 69

•	Helpful Publications @ www.cdc.gov/eval

(CDC MMWR weekly report  image)
CBPH – An evaluation framework for community health programs

Slide 70
•	Helpful Resources

•	NEW! Intro to Program Evaluation for PH Programs—A Self-Study Guide: http://www.cdc.gov/eval/whatsnew.htm
•	Logic Model Sites
Innovation Network: 
	http://www.innonet.org/
W.K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Resources: http://www.wkkf.org/programming/overview.aspx?CID=281
University of Wisconsin-Extension: http://www.uwex.edu/ces/lmcourse/
•	Texts
Rogers et al.  Program Theory in Evaluation.  New Directions Series: Jossey-Bass, Fall 2000
Chen, H.  Theory-Driven Evaluations.  Sage.  1990

Slide 71

•	Community Tool Box
http://ctb.ku.edu

(community tool box web page image)

This document can be found on the CDC website at:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/progeval/downloads/eval-course.rtf