1. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation Where we are trying to go? Common outcome measures Quality data collection for outcomes A clear understanding of individual program process measurement needs Program evaluation practiced locally

2. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation Purpose of Trainings To build capacity to move from reporting inputs/outputs at program level (the current state) to data-driven performance measurement and management linked to organizational goals and priorities (the future state).

3. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation Four Logic Model sessions starting in November 2008 and running through February 2009. These sessions will be 3-4 hours each. Grantees will complete Evaluation Planning Worksheets. Grantees will complete and submit a data collection methodology. Grantees will submit data to Muskie by summer 2009. Training Overview

4. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation By early 2009, all JJAG grantees will have developed a project-specific Logic Model(s) and evaluation planning worksheets By mid 2009, grantees will have developed/modified existing data collection tools, developed an evaluation methodology, and started to collect data. Training Objectives - Overall

5. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation Differentiate the 3 levels of evaluation Understand the Steps in the Evaluation Process Recognize the advantages of Logic Models Complete a Basic Logic Model Training Objectives

6. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation What have we done? How well have we done it? How much have we done? How effective has our program been? What could we do better or differently? Was it worthwhile? Was it important? Program Evaluation Can Answer:

7. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation Use Three Levels of Evaluation to help answer the evaluation questions Process: (Interventions, Activities or Strategies) Impact: (Initial and Intermediate outcomes) Outcome: (Long-term outcomes)

8. Steps in the Evaluation Process 1. Engage Stakeholders 2. Describe Program 3. Determine Evaluation Design 4. Collect Data 5. Analyze and Interpret Data 6. Ensure Use and Share Lessons Learned START HERE

9. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation Program Overview Logic Model Program Components Initial Outcomes Long-Term Outcomes Interventions Intermediate Outcomes ProcessImpact Outcome

10. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation HIV Program Logic Model Template (for providers) *remember YOUTH, RACIAL and ETHNIC MINORITIES and PEOPLE with HIV throughout *KANS=Knowledge, Attitudes, Norms, Skills; **B=Behavior Unsafe Sex, Both Partners Male Decreased HIV trans- mission Improved well-being of HIV infected people Program Components (priority populations) Intervention Initial Outcomes (KANS) Intermediate Outcomes (B) Long-Term Outcome (Health) Group Level Six session HIV prevention education group in Correctional settings. Education will include condom use negotiation with sex partners. Persons attending the groups will report an increase in the intent to negotiate condom use with sex partners. Persons attending the groups will negotiate condom use with sex partners. Persons attending the group will use condoms with their sex partners.

11. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation Data Sources Exercise Long- Term Outcome Inter- mediate Outcome Initial Outcome Inter- ventions Evaluation Questions Perform- ance Indicators MeasuresData Sources Timing

12. Muskie School of Public ServiceInstitute for Public Sector Innovation Expectations: 1. Grantees will be responsible for completing multiple worksheets between sessions. 2. We will monitor your progress and report any delays in submitting assignments. 3. Muskie will provide ample TA. You can call on us if you have any questions.