12/12/2011 Overview of Session Objectives Core Violence and Injury - - PDF document

12/12/2011 1

Overview of Core Violence and Injury Prevention Program & Evaluation for Expert Evaluation Panel

November 30, 2011 ,

Division of Injury Response: Program Team Howard Kress, PhD Christopher D. Jones, PhD

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control

Division of Injury Response

Session Objectives

 Provide background information on:

• Core VIPP Cooperative Agreement
• Core VIPP Evaluation Cooperative Agreement

 Answer questions about both Cooperative Agreements

Core VIPP Objectives

 Reduce injury related morbidity, mortality, disparity and

costs through enchaining the ability of states health departments

 Build upon the existing state health department  Build upon the existing state health department

infrastructure to create effective delivery systems for evidence based interventions.

Theory of Change

 Infrastructure is the base from which success happens  By funding 28 states at ~$250K per year health impact will

be achieved

 The evaluation of Core VIPP will help us know if this funding

level is good enough to create health impact

Core Violence and Injury Prevention Program

IA MN NE MT ND SD MI VT ME ID NV UT WY OH PA NJ NY NH MA CT RI AK WI WA OR

Colors represent Regional Networks: Dark = Funded; Light = Unfunded

RNL SQI Falls MVP

CA IN KY UT AZ NM TX OK IL OH WV SC TN AR MS AL VA NC GA FL MD DE MO KS LA CO HI PR VI DC US Pacific Islands

Core VIPP Components

 Base Integration Component (BIC)  Expanded Components

• Multi‐component Interventions in Multiple Settings to

Prevent Falls in Older Adults (Falls)

• Motor Vehicle Policy (MVP)
• Surveillance Quality Indicators (SQI)
• Regional Network Leaders (RNL)

12/12/2011 2

Base Integration Component: Funding

 28 total states  Total funding $7 million per year  $250,000 per state per year

l f f d

 5 total years of funding

State‐level Objectives for Core VIPP

• 1. Enhancing injury and violence prevention program

infrastructure

• 2. Collect and analyze data

3

Support and evaluate program and policy

• 3. Support and evaluate program and policy

interventions

• 4. Affect policy
• 5. Conduct program evaluation
• 6. Participate in meetings

Core VIPP & Public Health Model

Use

Test

ID factors Define Core VIPP’s Target

Falls

 Integrate evidence‐based interventions in community and

clinical care practice

 Implemented in a defined geographic area

d bl h i f ll i j

• demonstrate measurable changes in fall injury rates

 Partner with the community:

• Sustainability
• Policy & practice change

Falls: Funding

 3 States

• New York
• Colorado
• Oregon

 Annual funding: $825,000  Annual funding: $825,000  Annual State funding: $275,000

Falls: Evaluation

 Division of Unintentional Injury has a contract to evaluate

the Falls component

 DIR and Safe States Alliance/SAVIR do not have to evaluate  DIR and Safe States Alliance/SAVIR do not have to evaluate

Falls

12/12/2011 3

MVP Purpose

 Prevent motor vehicle related injuries in children

and teens by supporting:

• Select MV priority policy topics

Select MV priority policy topics

• Develop policy strategies and interventions
• Evaluate implemented interventions

MVP: Funding

 10 Funded States:

• Washington State
• Utah
• Colorado
• Minnesota
• Ohio
• New York
• Nebraska
• Kentucky

 Approximate Average Award: $150,000  Approximate Current Fiscal Year Funding: $1,500,000

• Pennsylvania
• Massachusetts

MV Policy

 Primary seat belt law  Gaps in child passenger safety  Pedestrian and bicycle safety  Strengthening graduated driver licensing policy  Driver education and training  Teen driver distraction

SQI: Purpose

 Conduct injury data investigations  Promoting and advancing uniform injury case

definitions

 Improving data quality  Advancing methodology

SQI: Funding

 $499,779 Total Dollar Amount  Four States

• Colorado: $128,029
• Massachusetts: $128 079
• Massachusetts: $128,079
• North Carolina: $128,078
• Utah: $115,593

SQI: Current Work

 First Year SQI Project:  Childhood Injury Report to support Early Childhood Home

Visitation

• Recommendations
• Publication template

12/12/2011 4

Regional Network Leader: Mission Statement

A regional network of states encourages the creation, sharing and effective application of knowledge to address injury and violence prevention and control i hi ll within all states.

RNL: Purpose

 Increase state injury and violence prevention

capacity across the network to prevent and reduce injury and violence

• Build Capacity

Build Capacity

• Share Best Practices

RNL: Roles and Responsibilities

 Structure for cross‐state collaboration  Partnerships:

• States in region
• ICRCs
• Association of State and Territorial Health Officers

(ASTHO)

• Safe States Alliance

 Peer to Peer Coaching

RNL: Funding

 5 Awarded States

• Kansas
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• North Carolina
• Washington

 Approximate Current Fiscal Year Funding: $250,000  Approximate Total Project Period Funding: $1,250,000  Average Award: $50,000

RNL: Current Activities

 Held the first “Kick Off” Meeting in October 2011  Need Assessment  Development of communication tools

RNL: Goals for next 5 years

• Better training opportunities
• Establish mentoring relationships
• Create region‐wide project(s)

k f l f d

• Look for regional funding opportunities
• Create a regional community of states for talking

about violence and injury prevention issues

12/12/2011 5

CDC Technical Assistance

 On a monthly basis

• Program Consultants and States will have regular monthly calls
• CDC will host webinars on third Tuesdays 2 – 3 PM ET
• Guidance and training on specific program activities
• Topic specific once states identify priorities

 Evaluation

• CDC cooperative agreement
• CDC evaluation‐dedicated staff
• provide training via webinars
• provide one‐on‐one TA

 Policy

• CDC policy‐dedicated staff
• State Health Department Guide

Core VIPP Evaluation

 States: Evaluate interventions

• Develop and implement evaluation plans
• Develop logic model
• Integrate evaluation with planning

 CDC: Evaluate Core VIPP

• Program value

Stretch slide

Core VIPP Evaluation

 Goal:

• Develop evidence for a national program

 Objectives:

• Evaluate the impact of funding
• Health impact, capacity, & sustainability
• Evaluate the impact of Technical Assistance
• Health impact, capacity, & sustainability

Capacity Pathways Infrastructure Evaluation

SHD

Strategies Collaboration Surveillance

SHD Capacity

12/12/2011 6

Moving the Needle Burden Capacity Infrastructure

Year 1 Years 2‐4 Project End

Increased skill‐sets of SHD

• Formative

Implemented strategic plans

• Formative

Increased diversity of IVP funding and resources

• Summative

Evaluation

Year 1 Years 2‐4 Project End

Established evaluation & monitoring

• utcomes
• Formative

Self‐ evaluation of activities

• Formative

Achievement

• f 4 & 5 year

goals

• Summative
• Health Impact

Strategies

Year 1 Years 2‐4 Project End

Established MOUs for policy & intervention plans

• Formative

Implemented 4 priority topic strategies

• Formative

Evidence influenced strategies

• Summative
• Health Impact

Collaboration

Year 1 Years 2‐4 Project End

Increased public awareness of injury & violence

• Formative

Enhanced partnerships

• Formative

Increased political will for IVP issues

• Summative

Surveillance

Year 1 Years 2‐4 Project End

Implemented surveillance standards

• Formative

Strengthened injury & violence surveillance

• Formative

Effective use

• f state injury

& violence data

• Summative

12/12/2011 7

Core VIPP Public Health Impact

 The effect of program & policy strategies on the burden of

injury & violence in a community

 Four key components:

F

• Focus area
• Strategy
• Reach
• Impact

What is the FOCUS AREA?

 NCIPC

• Motor vehicle‐related injury
• Violence against children & youth
• Prescription drug overdose
• Traumatic brain injury

 Core VIPP 4 focus areas

• 3 fixed, 1 flexible
• 4 Health impact S.M.A.R.T. objectives

What is the STRATEGY?

 Program

• Example: Tai Chi: Moving for Better Balance program for
• lder adults

P li

 Policy

• Example: Booster seat law for children

 Both

• Example: Return to play policy with coach education

component

What is the REACH?

Nation Region State County Local

What is the IMPACT?

Proximal

• Evidence‐informed

Distal

• Burden of Injury &

Violence

Evaluating Core VIPP

Health Impact Health Impact Successes Successes Context Context Program Value Program Value Impact Impact

12/12/2011 8

Getting to Program Value

Progress Reports TA Tracking Web Survey Phone Interviews

Regulatory Issues

 IRB

• Evaluation is exempt
• Processed and approved

 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

• Approval in Spring 2012
• Modifications in 2013

CDC’s Role

 Establish foundation  Manage Federal processes  Provide input on CDC and State

evaluation needs

 Collaborate with Safe States

Alliance and SAVIR

Discussion

Engage Stakeholder Engage Stakeholder Describe the program Describe the program Ensure use and share lessons learned Ensure use and share lessons learned

Standards Utility

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR 1999; 48(No. RR‐11)

Focus the evaluation Focus the evaluation Gather credible evidence Gather credible evidence Justify conclusions Justify conclusions

Feasibility Propriety Accuracy

Contact Information: Howard Kress: HKress@cdc.gov Christopher D. Jones: CJones16@cdc.gov Rebecca Greco‐Koné: RGrecoKone@cdc.gov

For more information please contact Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 1600 Clifton Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30333 Telephone: 1‐800‐CDC‐INFO (232‐4636)/TTY: 1‐888‐232‐6348 E‐mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov Web: http://www.cdc.gov

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control