Using Evaluation Capacity Building (ECB) to Interpret Evaluation Strategy and Practice in the United States National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP)

A Preliminary Study

Authors

  • Donald W. Compton Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  • Goldie Macdonald Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  • Michael Baizerman University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA
  • Michael W. Schooley Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
  • Lei Zhang Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.0023.010

Abstract

The Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) supports state programs for the prevention and control of tobacco use through the National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP). OSH provides the NTCP with expert guidance and technical assistance on tobacco use control and disease surveillance as well as evaluation of tobacco control programs. These services fit national health goals and provide data to inform national and state policy making and program planning. However, the NTCP’s delivery of services, achievement of goals, and evaluation of efforts is hindered by fluctuations in dedicated state funds to support tobacco use prevention and control programs. To maximize effort and resources, evaluation capacity building (ECB) is a strategy for strengthening evaluation services, program efficiency, and program effectiveness, that is, program improvement. This article interprets NTCP using an ECB frame to learn the utility of this approach for making suggestions for structural and practice changes that lead to program improvement.

Downloads

Published

2009-01-21

How to Cite

Compton, D. W., Macdonald, G., Baizerman, M., Schooley, M. W., & Zhang, L. (2009). Using Evaluation Capacity Building (ECB) to Interpret Evaluation Strategy and Practice in the United States National Tobacco Control Program (NTCP): A Preliminary Study. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 23(3), 199–224. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe.0023.010

Most read articles by the same author(s)