Community Partnerships for Healthy Children (CPHC) Evaluation Results

Evaluation of the Initiative

How do CPHC collaboratives know whether the work they are doing is making a difference in their communities? Collaboratives track their progress by implementing an evaluation plan and conducting periodic self-assessments. Moreover, SRI International has conducted an evaluation of the overall initiative.

The evidence from the first two years of implementation shows that the CPHC collaboratives successfully conducted a variety of projects in their communities. Areas of collaborative activity included Proposition 10, health, parenting, school readiness and achievement, recreation, and child development. Collaboratives were involved with health, recreation, social and education services, policy and advocacy, events such as family picnics and community fairs, and information dissemination through newsletters and the local papers.

Communities are working in a number of different outcome areas including child abuse and neglect, child care, immunizations, parenting, school readiness, violence, and drug abuse. Each community collects data on its particular outcome areas. When all indicators available after two years were examined:

• 62% showed trends over time in the desirable direction.
• 25% showed trends indicating the outcome was getting worse.
• 13% showed no change or a mixed pattern over time.

Areas with the most indicators showing positive change were poverty and economic development, dental health, community resources, and preventive health care.

SRI surveyed collaborative members in spring of 1999 to learn their impressions of changes brought about in their communities by the collaboratives. More than 500 members responded.

• 86% saw more opportunities for people to get together with one another.
• 88% saw more awareness of resources for families in the community.
• 92% believed that groups concerned with children and families were working together more closely now.
• 69% believed that the overall quality of life in the community had improved.

These data are very preliminary and should be interpreted as such since the final evaluation of the initiative is still under way. The information available thus far should be seen as providing preliminary answers about the potential of community-building as a strategy for health improvement.