Wednesday, February 3, 2010

MISRGO Evaluation - February 2010 Progress Report

MISRGO Evaluation Progress Report. The 2010 Progress Report has been issued. It is currently being reviewed by the MISRGO Advisory Board (February 3, 2010).

The report highlights MISRGO's and the grantees' efforts to launch a new evaluation monitoring and reporting system. Each grantee is now required to establish a baseline, specify program goals, and develop realistic benchmarks (to help guide and monitor program performance).

It represents a systematic approach to monitoring and evaluating grantee performance, building on the existing framework.


1. All grantees are operating within the 4 MISRGO domains, including:
  • Creating Tobacco-Free Environments
  • Reducing Youth Access to Tobacco
  • Promoting Quitting Among Youth & Adults
  • Identifying and Eliminating Tobacc0-Related Disparities Among Population Groups
2. Grantees have established baselines, specific goals, and annual (as well as quarterly) benchmarks
For example, the Mississippi County Coalition for Tobacco-Free Arkansas (MCCTFA) has a goal of increasing the number of public buildings with smoke-free policies by 15% (22 of 157) by 2015. They divided their long-term goal of 22 by 5 years. This resulted in equal benchmarks of 4.5 each year. (Approximately 5% of public buildings in their area have already been identified as having smoke-free policies, representing their baseline).

3. Many grantees are using the Evaluation Monitoring System (to record the number of people they help to stop using tobacco and translate that figure into dollars saved in terms of excess medical expenses)

4. Many grantees are using the Visual Alert System (to plan their activities and compare their plans with their actual performance)

5. Although, most grantees and evaluators have made a conscientious effort to create accurate baselines, realistic benchmarks, and meaningful goals, there is considerable variation among grantees concerning the use of the new evaluation monitoring and reporting tools.

6. In addition, grantees are currently implementing a wide-variety of activities. At one point consideration might be given to consolidating and focusing on fewer activities held in common by the group. This would result in a "bigger dose effect" - with more grantees conducting the same type of activities across the State.

7. The data also suggest that additional training is merited (and is planned for the March 25, 2010 evaluation training workshop). It will address issues associated with the variability or quality of the data.

The report is available online at 2010 Progress Report or in the right hand column of resources and MISRGO evaluation documents.