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

12/12/2011 Overview of Session Objectives Core Violence and Injury Prevention Program & Evaluation  Provide background information on: for  Core VIPP Cooperative Agreement Expert Evaluation Panel  Core VIPP Evaluation Cooperative Agreement November 30, 2011 ,  Answer questions about both Cooperative Agreements Division of Injury Response: Program Team Howard Kress, PhD Christopher D. Jones, PhD National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Division of Injury Response Core VIPP Objectives Theory of Change  Reduce injury related morbidity, mortality, disparity and  Infrastructure is the base from which success happens costs through enchaining the ability of states health departments  By funding 28 states at ~$250K per year health impact will be achieved  Build upon the existing state health department  Build upon the existing state health department infrastructure to create effective delivery systems for evidence based interventions.  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 AK Colors represent Regional Networks: RNL Core VIPP Components Dark = Funded; Light = Unfunded SQI Falls  Base Integration Component (BIC) MVP WA MT ME ND VT  Expanded Components MN OR NH ID NY SD WI MA  Multi ‐ component Interventions in Multiple Settings to WY MI RI CT IA Prevent Falls in Older Adults ( Falls ) PA NE NJ NV OH OH UT UT IN DE DC IL WV CO  Motor Vehicle Policy ( MVP ) CA VA MD KS MO KY NC TN  Surveillance Quality Indicators ( SQI ) AZ OK NM AR SC GA MS AL  Regional Network Leaders ( RNL ) HI TX LA US Pacific Islands FL PR VI 1

12/12/2011 Base Integration Component: Funding State ‐ level Objectives for Core VIPP 1. Enhancing injury and violence prevention program  28 total states infrastructure  Total funding $7 million per year 2. Collect and analyze data  $250,000 per state per year 3. Support and evaluate program and policy Support and evaluate program and policy 3  5 total years of funding l f f d interventions 4. Affect policy 5. Conduct program evaluation 6. Participate in meetings Core VIPP & Public Health Model Falls  Integrate evidence ‐ based interventions in community and clinical care practice  Implemented in a defined geographic area  demonstrate measurable changes in fall injury rates d bl h i f ll i j Define ID factors Test Use  Partner with the community:  Sustainability  Policy & practice change Core VIPP’s Target Falls : Funding Falls: Evaluation  3 States  Division of Unintentional Injury has a contract to evaluate  New York the Falls component  Colorado  Oregon  Annual funding: $825,000  Annual funding: $825,000  DIR and Safe States Alliance/SAVIR do not have to evaluate  DIR and Safe States Alliance/SAVIR do not have to evaluate Falls  Annual State funding: $275,000 2

12/12/2011 MVP Purpose MVP: Funding  Prevent motor vehicle related injuries in children  10 Funded States:  Minnesota and teens by supporting:  Washington State  Ohio  Utah  New York  Colorado  Select MV priority policy topics Select MV priority policy topics  Pennsylvania  Nebraska  Develop policy strategies and interventions  Massachusetts  Kentucky  Evaluate implemented interventions  Approximate Average Award: $150,000  Approximate Current Fiscal Year Funding: $1,500,000 MV Policy SQI: Purpose  Primary seat belt law  Conduct injury data investigations  Gaps in child passenger safety  Promoting and advancing uniform injury case  Pedestrian and bicycle safety definitions  Strengthening graduated driver licensing policy  Improving data quality  Driver education and training  Advancing methodology  Teen driver distraction SQI: Funding SQI: Current Work  $499,779 Total Dollar Amount  First Year SQI Project:  Four States  Childhood Injury Report to support Early Childhood Home  Colorado: $128,029 Visitation  Massachusetts: $128 079  Massachusetts: $128,079  Recommendations  North Carolina: $128,078  Publication template  Utah: $115,593 3

12/12/2011 Regional Network Leader: RNL: Purpose Mission Statement  Increase state injury and violence prevention A regional network of states encourages the creation, capacity across the network to prevent and reduce sharing and effective application of knowledge to injury and violence address injury and violence prevention and control  Build Capacity Build Capacity within all states. i hi ll  Share Best Practices RNL: Roles and Responsibilities RNL: Funding  Structure for cross ‐ state collaboration  5 Awarded States  Kansas  Partnerships:  Maryland  States in region  Massachusetts  ICRCs  North Carolina  Association of State and Territorial Health Officers  Washington (ASTHO)  Safe States Alliance  Approximate Current Fiscal Year Funding: $250,000  Approximate Total Project Period Funding: $1,250,000  Peer to Peer Coaching  Average Award: $50,000 RNL: Current Activities RNL: Goals for next 5 years  Held the first “Kick Off” Meeting in October 2011 • Better training opportunities  Need Assessment • Establish mentoring relationships  Development of communication tools • Create region ‐ wide project(s) • Look for regional funding opportunities k f l f d • Create a regional community of states for talking about violence and injury prevention issues 4

12/12/2011 CDC Technical Assistance Core VIPP Evaluation  On a monthly basis  States: Evaluate interventions  Program Consultants and States will have regular monthly calls  Develop and implement evaluation plans  CDC will host webinars on third Tuesdays 2 – 3 PM ET  Develop logic model • Guidance and training on specific program activities • Topic specific once states identify priorities  Integrate evaluation with planning  Evaluation  CDC cooperative agreement  CDC: Evaluate Core VIPP  CDC evaluation ‐ dedicated staff  Program value • provide training via webinars • provide one ‐ on ‐ one TA  Policy  CDC policy ‐ dedicated staff  State Health Department Guide Core VIPP Evaluation Stretch slide  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 SHD Strategies Capacity Collaboration Surveillance 5

12/12/2011 Moving the Needle Infrastructure Year 1 Years 2 ‐ 4 Project End Burden Increased Implemented Increased skill ‐ sets of strategic plans diversity of SHD IVP funding and resources Capacity •Formative •Summative • Formative Evaluation Strategies Year 1 Years 2 ‐ 4 Project End Year 1 Years 2 ‐ 4 Project End Established Self ‐ Achievement Established Implemented Evidence evaluation & evaluation of of 4 & 5 year MOUs for 4 priority topic influenced monitoring activities goals policy & strategies strategies outcomes intervention plans •Summative •Formative •Summative • Formative •Formative •Health Impact • Formative •Health Impact Collaboration Surveillance Year 1 Years 2 ‐ 4 Project End Year 1 Years 2 ‐ 4 Project End Increased Enhanced Increased Implemented Strengthened Effective use public surveillance partnerships political will injury & of state injury awareness of standards for IVP issues violence & violence injury & surveillance data violence • Formative •Formative • Formative •Formative •Summative •Summative 6

12/12/2011 Core VIPP Public Health Impact What is the FOCUS AREA?  The effect of program & policy strategies on the burden of  NCIPC injury & violence in a community  Motor vehicle ‐ related injury  Violence against children & youth  Four key components:  Prescription drug overdose  Focus area F  Traumatic brain injury  Strategy  Reach  Core VIPP 4 focus areas  Impact  3 fixed, 1 flexible  4 Health impact S.M.A.R.T. objectives What is the REACH? What is the STRATEGY? Nation  Program  Example: Tai Chi: Moving for Better Balance program for Region older adults State  Policy P li  Example: Booster seat law for children County  Both  Example: Return to play policy with coach education Local component Evaluating Core VIPP What is the IMPACT? Successes Successes Proximal Health Health • Evidence ‐ informed Context Context Impact Impact Impact Impact Distal Program Program • Burden of Injury & Value Value Violence 7