1. Negotiating Diverse Contexts and Expectations in Stakeholder Engagement Sue Lin Yee, MA, MPH National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Office of the Director American Evaluation Association November 13, 2008 The findings of this presentation are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

2. “The most basic question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best.” — Thomas Sowell

3. Patton’s Levels of Stakeholder Involvement* Inform: Kept informed, disseminate findings, generate interest Consult: Listened to, review & comment, anticipate problems, suggest priorities, enhance credibility of results Involve: Affirm importance, enhance appropriateness, utility, and establish credibility of evaluation *Michael Q. Patton, “Utilization-Focused Evaluation, “ 4 th Edition, 2008

4. Patton’s Levels of Stakeholder Involvement* Collaborate: Advise and recommend, feedback integrated to greatest extent possible, participate in meaningful decision-making, primary intended users have ownership in evaluation Empower: Direct the evaluation, offered options to inform decisions, use evaluation to build capacity and practice *From Michael Q. Patton, “Utilization-Focused Evaluation, “ 4 th Edition, 2008

5. Stakeholder Context: Why It Matters Context affects values, perspectives, priorities, expectations, and actions Influence based on varying personal and organizational contexts Stakeholder specific “currencies”

6. Stakeholder Context: Why It Matters Stakeholder context can influence –Evaluation design –Implementation –Use of findings Benefit is increased understanding of the social and political contexts of program and components

7. Managing Stakeholder Context Differences can create fear, mistrust, conflicts Explicit identification and discussion of issues can facilitate participation Provide a forum for sharing information about the evaluation Expect that stakeholder engagement may change due to evolution of the evaluation

8. ICRC Portfolio Evaluation Primary Stakeholders National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) Office of the Director (OD) Extramural Research Program Office (ERPO) External Peer Review Panel NCIPC Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC)

9. ICRC Portfolio Evaluation Secondary Stakeholders CDC-funded Injury Control Research Centers (ICRC) NCIPC divisions ICRC Portfolio Evaluation Team –CDC Project Team –MayaTech Corporation

10. ICRC Portfolio Evaluation Workgroup (IPEW) Guide planning and implementation of evaluation Provide feedback on key documents Suggest strategies on dissemination of information from the evaluation ICRC Evaluation Team reserved the right to make final decisions

11. Stakeholder Involvement on IPEW ICRC Evaluation Team (E) NCIPC Office of the Director (Varied) Extramural Research Program (Inf) Injury Control Research Centers (Inv) Peer review panel chair person (Ct) Previous portfolio reviews (Inv) NCIPC divisions (Inf) Other CDC center programs (Inv) Other CDC evaluators (Inv)

12. Guiding Questions What is the value of the ICRC portfolio ? How has the ICRC program built the injury field? Value outside of CDC and ICRCs Advantage of programs vs. grants How has the ICRC program affected injury outcomes? Contributions toward behavioral modification Influences on policy and legislation

13. Discussion & Questions