November 13, 2010American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting-- San Antonio, TX1 Evaluating Partnerships: One size does not fit all Johnnye L. Lewis, Ph.D., DABT Director, Community Environmental Health Program, College of Pharmacy, University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center Work funded by NIEHS P30 ES , R25 ES013208, & R01 ES014565, R25ES and NCRR M01-RR and CDC U01TS ; additional laboratory analytical support from CDC and USEPA Region 9.

November 13, 2010American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting-- San Antonio, TX2 My Background with Partnerships Director of Community Outreach - NIEHS Center Developer and Director -- Community Environmental Health Program -- UNM-HSC Several NIH & CDC awards in Environmental Justice –Pueblo tribes and rural Hispanic communities affected by releases from Los Alamos National Laboratory –Navajo Communities -- Uranium Exposure –Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe -- Mercury Exposures –Urban Hispanic and low SES communities in Albuquerque -- preservation of agricultural tradition and land-use in face of urban/industrial sprawl Some population and/or laboratory research oriented, some education/outreach based

November 13, 2010American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting-- San Antonio, TX3 Model for effective translation COMMUNITY HEALTHCARE PRACTITIONERS RESEARCHERS POLICY Community Environmental Health Program

November 13, 2010American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting-- San Antonio, TX4 What we learned from evaluation

November 13, 2010American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting-- San Antonio, TX5 PEPH Guidance allows for flexibility DiNEH Project: –Mature core of partners –Expansion of partners in response to community/research needs –Partners operate as a team common long-term unified goal: What is effect of uranium exposure on health? –New partners identified by community needs: Medicine men Broader number of chapters –Partners also identified by research results clinical chemistry, biomarkers of cardiovascular, kidney, and autoimmune disease. –New questions from community: reproductive outcomes and child development. –Team includes staff of federal and tribal agencies, Cheyenne River: –Mature core of partners –Expansion of resources, not partnership –Partners operate independently merging as opportunities/resources identified. What is effect of mercury exposure on health? –Each engages their own partners, maintains communication. Tribal agency brought in EPA, USGS University brought in CDC, autoimmune researchers –New questions initiated by each partner Tribe: distribution of contaminants from Hearst mine Researchers: clinical implications of elevated autoimmune markers –Federal agencies participation limited to specific questions. Suggested metrics adapted to each situation, stage of development

November 13, 2010American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting-- San Antonio, TX6 Possible additions Identify potential threats to partnership not related to activity or interaction of partners –External pressures on partner organizations –Political, resource-based, personality-based, capacity-based –Make strategies to identify, discuss, and cope with these explicit Make goals of each partner explicit, criteria for achieving those goals, and exit strategies –Partnerships do not have to be “for life” –Organizational changes can introduce change that make partnership no longer compatible Example 1: Boards can change membership on a regular basis, and after several cycles the goals of current board members may no longer included the historical commitment. Example 2: Reduction in basic programmatic funding may reduce resources that sustain community projects although not directly supporting your partnership. Dedicated partners trying to “carry on” and save the partnership may face internal pressures that limit their effectiveness in the partnership.

November 13, 2010American Evaluation Association Annual Meeting-- San Antonio, TX7 Clear identification of metrics  informed decisions  effective growth DiNEH ProjectCheyenne River Sioux Activity 1 Determine rationale for participation Impact 2 Independent action, long-term collaborative support to achieve common goals Impact 1 Stable core partnership, high level of trust, independent decision-making, communication Impact 1 Continued evolution of partners to meet project needs, consensus-based action Impact 2 Improved communication and agreement on goals Output 1 Identification of importance of key questions/rank in organizational priorities Output 2 Agreement to support and consult as needs and resources are identified Output 1 Identification of common goal, appreciation for collaboration of core partners Activity 2 Develop process for identifying research priorities Activity 1 Determine rationale for participation Activity 2 Develop process for identifying research priorities Output 2 Development of consensus process among partners