Search

Young children are at high risk of lead poisoning, which can damage early cognitive and behavioral development and have long-lasting impacts. Home environments are persistent sources of exposure for children in urban, low-income settings. Community–academic partnerships are essential for public health intervention strategies addressing residential household lead exposure, yet community organization staff and home visitors often experience strain and burnout. We describe Parenting and Lead Mitigation at Home, a multifaceted partnership project to (a) develop and implement a community-based, peer-delivered education program for parents of young children in neighborhoods at risk for home lead exposure and (b) support the home visitors delivering programming. We developed, delivered, and initially evaluated Lead 101, a lead-exposure prevention curriculum informed by the Community Organizing and Family Issues (COFI) model. The goals were to educate parents around lead exposure risks and empower parents to reduce their child's risk. We developed a novel Reflective Practice pilot curriculum designed to provide emotional support to peer educators and community organization staff who delivered home-based programming. We trained 11 peer educators who delivered Lead 101 to 62 families. We pilot-tested the Reflective Practice curriculum with five community organization staff. The implementation process and pilot evaluation data suggest increased parent knowledge and self-efficacy regarding mitigation of home-based lead hazards, and high satisfaction with reflective practice. Using this model to develop multifaceted partnerships among universities, community-based organizations, and focal communities may facilitate community-engaged program development for families and systematic support for individuals working directly with families, thereby indirectly promoting child health and well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quality improvement (QI) and evaluation are frequently considered to be alternative approaches for monitoring and assessing program implementation and impact. The emphasis on third-party evaluation, particularly associated with summative evaluation, and the grounding of evaluation in the social and behavioral science contrast with an emphasis on the integration of QI process within programs or organizations and its origins in management science and industrial engineering. Working with a major philanthropic organization in Georgia, we illustrate how a QI model is integrated with evaluation for five asthma prevention and control sites serving poor and underserved communities in rural and urban Georgia. A primary foundation of this merged model of QI and evaluation is a refocusing of the evaluation from an intimidating report card summative evaluation by external evaluators to an internally engaged program focus on developmental evaluation. The benefits of the merged model to both QI and evaluation are discussed. The use of evaluation based logic models can help anchor a QI program in evidence-based practice and provide linkage between process and outputs with the longer term distal outcomes. Merging the QI approach with evaluation has major advantages, particularly related to enhancing the funder’s return on investment. We illustrate how a Plan-Do-Study-Act model of QI can (a) be integrated with evaluation based logic models, (b) help refocus emphasis from summative to developmental evaluation, (c) enhance program ownership and engagement in evaluation activities, and (d) increase the role of evaluators in providing technical assistance and support. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]