Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evaluation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
DPH, Yale outline evaluation questions for climate‑health curriculum and local planning pilots
Summary
DPH and Yale presenters reviewed evaluation questions for two adaptation actions — curriculum/training and local heat/air‑quality planning — and described next steps for methods, CDC review and M&E subcommittee feedback.
Jen, a staff member working on evaluation, presented the coalition with the project’s refined evaluation questions and next steps for data collection and CDC review.
Jen summarized the two adaptation actions and the core evaluation questions. For the curriculum and training (adaptation action 1) she said the core questions are: “how engaged were stakeholders and how can we engage them more effectively? ... how did the curriculum impact individual knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs related to the health risk of climate change? And then how did the training impact the behaviors of local health departments regarding their willingness and interest to plan and implement climate and health activities in their communities?”
For adaptation action 2 — the local heat and air quality planning through pilot grants — Jen said the evaluation focuses on how DPH and Yale support local health departments to develop plans, how stakeholders were engaged, and "what are the key activities, facilitators, challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations that ever emerge from the process, developing the plan?" She said the AA2 questions were adapted from Maine’s evaluation plan and will be primarily qualitative because the team will work closely with the four pilot grantees.
Next steps: Jen said the team will revise data collection methods to reflect the updated questions, circulate written documents and data‑collection methodologies to coalition members (especially the M&E subcommittee), incorporate CDC technical assistance, and finalize the evaluation for submission. She asked for a month for feedback from subcommittee members and said the team will start evaluation activities after CDC review and finalization.
What participants raised: coalition members were invited to provide feedback; none of the meeting comments changed the core questions during the session. Jen emphasized feasibility limits given timelines and that some measures may be shallower than ideal but still valuable for grant reapplication and learning.
The presentation concluded with a reminder that evaluation will include both quantitative and qualitative methods including pre/post surveys in the training platform and follow‑up interviews with participants.
