Utilizing the CDC Guide

Introduction: Partnerships are a key components of a state asthma program's infrastructure that aid in the effective, efficient, and sustainable delivery of asthma services. To guide state asthma programs in conducting infrastructure evaluations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Asthma Control Program (NACP) developed the award-winning Learning and Growing through Evaluation State Asthma Program Evaluation Guide. The Guide offers state asthma programs a programmatically-sound, data-driven approach to evaluation that can be implemented in multiple contexts. This poster provides an overview of the partnership modules and describes how the guidance has been applied by the Maryland state asthma program to evaluate and improve program infrastructure.

Methods: The Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene's Maryland Asthma Control Program (MACP) is
funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Asthma Control Program to address the
asthma burden through partnerships, surveillance, and interventions. To strengthen its infrastructure, the
MACP completed a partnership evaluation during between December 2011 and November 2012. Strong partnerships are fundamental to the MACP's long-term success because they give the program the ability to leverage resources and coordinate interventions with multiple partners. The MACP utilized the Learning and Growing through Evaluation: State Asthma Program Evaluation Guide ("The Guide") to develop a detailed plan that included stakeholder input, a logic model, evaluation questions and a dissemination plan. Specifically, the partnership evaluation focused on four areas: partnership roles and responsibilities, network functionality, partner expertise, and communication. In response to the evaluation findings and in order to address the partnership needs in each of these focus areas, an "intranet" using the Google for Nonprofits application suite was set up to facilitate communication between partners outside of meetings.

Results: 

1. Partners who are not actively engaged members of the executive committee should be replaced or shifted into different roles.

2. Partner meetings must occur quarterly (at minimum) to preserve momentum and continuity of activities.

3. The executive committee should make a targeted effort to recruit new partners to represent populations in rural areas of the state (specifically in Southern Maryland and the Eastern Shore.)

4. The intranet developped for executive committee members should be expanded to include portions of the site that would be publicly accessible for external community members and intervention partners.

Conclusion: Although partnerships can be uniquely challenging to evaluate due to unique and dynamic interpersonal relationships and variable organizational structures, the CDC's "Guide" proved to be a valuable tool which enabled the MACP to effectively evaluate its partnerships in order to improve planning, implementation, and sustainability of program efforts.