CHL 640 Week 6 Using and Sharing Evaluation Results Example

Eighteen Months of Results, Five Audiences, One Honest Story: Using and Sharing the Walk and Eat Well Evaluation

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

CHL/640: Evaluating Community Health Initiatives

Week 6 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The initiative, its results, audiences, reports, decisions and media coverage are composites written for a model paper modeled on Yakima, Washington; research findings and federal guidance come from the sources cited.

Eighteen months after Walk and Eat Well launched, the evaluator delivered results a week before three decisions: the foundation's renewal, the start of contract talks with the Medicaid managed care plan and the city council's parks and transit budget. How the results were used and shared would shape all three. This paper describes that work.

Where Use Fits in the Framework

CDC's framework for program evaluation ends with a step devoted to ensuring use and sharing lessons learned, and it treats utility, the degree to which an evaluation serves the information needs of intended users, as the first of its four groups of standards (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999). The team planned for use from the start by naming audiences and decisions in the first month.

What the Evaluation Found

The program enrolled 238 adults in lifestyle groups, 63% Spanish-speaking and 36% over 60, closely matching the east side's prediabetes registry, though men made up only 24%. Sixty-one percent attended at least 12 core sessions, up from 38% in the original program. Completers lost an average of 4.8% of body weight at twelve months, compared with 0.6% in the matched comparison group, and 42% lost 5% or more. More than twice as many participants met the weekly activity target at the end as at the start, 58% against 25%. Produce sales at partner stores rose after the program began, and evening path use roughly doubled compared with the months before the walking groups.

What Did Not Work

Some results disappointed. One store dropped out after its owner retired. Winter walking attendance fell by two-thirds. Participants who worked harvest shifts had the lowest completion. And cost per completer, about $2,900, was higher than planned because fewer men enrolled and completed. Reporting the store that dropped out and the winter slump made the good results more believable.

Participant Voices

Interviews explained the numbers. Participants credited promotoras who spoke their language and understood their lives, cooking sessions that changed family meals and walking with neighbors. Those who left cited harvest work, caregiving and, among men, a sense that groups were designed for women.

Why Involvement Drives Use

The team knew from research that stakeholder involvement matters. Johnson and colleagues, looking across two decades of research on whether evaluations get used, singled out the relationship between evaluators and users; steady contact and real engagement, more than report quality alone, predicted whether findings shaped decisions (Johnson et al., 2009). Every audience had been involved in shaping questions, which made them ready to use answers.

Preparing Audiences Before the Results

Use starts before results arrive. A month before the report, the evaluator met each audience to remind them of their questions and the decisions they faced, and to preview how results would be presented. The foundation's program officer asked for costs in a specific format; the Medicaid plan asked for results for its members only. Knowing these needs in advance meant the team did not have to redo analyses under deadline.

Audience One: Residents and Participants

Results went to residents first. Two data parties at the community center, in Spanish and English, presented charts and quotes, and residents discussed what the findings meant. A four-page bilingual community report with pictures was distributed at churches, stores and the clinic.

Audience Two: Program Staff

Promotoras, walk leaders and the coordinator met for a half-day workshop to turn findings into changes: a men's group on Saturday mornings at the soccer fields, a harvest-season break with phone check-ins, indoor winter walks in a school gym and recruitment of a replacement store.

Audience Three: The Foundation

The foundation received a full report with methods, results, costs and limitations, plus a two-page summary organized by its original questions. The report compared results with published benchmarks and explained, in plain terms, what the comparison group could and could not show.

Audience Four: The Medicaid Plan

For the Medicaid plan, the team prepared a business case: participants' weight and activity results, the program's cost per completer and published evidence on the returns of community health worker programs, with a proposal to pay promotoras per enrolled member.

Audience Five: City Officials

City officials received a one-page policy brief with a clear ask: extend lighting to a second mile of the river path and support a feasibility study for a full-service grocery store. Media advocacy supported the ask. Wallack and Dorfman describe media advocacy as the strategic use of mass media to advance public policy, framing issues so that solutions and decision makers' responsibilities are clear (Wallack & Dorfman, 1996). In addition, the coalition offered local reporters a story on a walking group and the path, featuring participants who agreed to speak, timed to the budget hearing.

Findings Into Decisions

The foundation renewed for two years. The Medicaid plan agreed to a one-year pilot paying for promotora services for its members. The city funded the second mile of path lighting and a grocery feasibility study. The coalition adopted the program changes.

When Audiences Disagreed

Not everyone read the results the same way. A council member argued that the weight results reflected motivated volunteers, not the program. The evaluator agreed that selection could explain part of the difference, showed the comparison with late enrollees measured before their groups began and noted that the store and path results did not depend on who enrolled. Engaging the challenge openly strengthened the case rather than weakening it.

Communicating Limits

Every product stated limits plainly: participants chose to enroll, so the comparison cannot rule out motivation; a single year of follow-up cannot show whether fewer people develop diabetes; and results may not apply to places without similar partners.

Following Up on Use

The team did not assume that decisions would be carried out. Three months after the reports, the coordinator checked: the men's group had started with 14 members, winter walks were scheduled, the Medicaid pilot contract was signed and the city had issued the lighting bid. Tracking follow-through is part of making an evaluation useful, not an extra.

Sharing Lessons Beyond the Community

The team presented results at a state public health conference with two resident co-presenters and drafted an article with residents as co-authors, following the partnership's agreement to share findings with the community before publication.

Continued Learning

The evaluation continues: diabetes incidence will be tracked through clinic records for three more years, the men's group and winter walks will be evaluated and data parties will continue every six months.

Conclusion

Walk and Eat Well's results reached five audiences in formats matched to their decisions, and those decisions followed: renewal, a Medicaid pilot, city investment and program changes. CDC's framework made use the final step, research on evaluation use explained why early involvement mattered and media advocacy connected findings to policy. Reporting disappointments alongside successes kept the story honest and made it more persuasive.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4811a1.htm

Johnson, K., Greenseid, L. O., Toal, S. A., King, J. A., Lawrenz, F., & Volkov, B. (2009). Research on evaluation use: A review of the empirical literature from 1986 to 2005. American Journal of Evaluation, 30(3), 377-410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214009341660

Wallack, L., & Dorfman, L. (1996). Media advocacy: A strategy for advancing policy and promoting health. Health Education Quarterly, 23(3), 293-317. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019819602300303