Working Summary of PE Questions
INPUTS (&/or their logic links)
From Logic Model of: Local-Level System
Capacity
Julie’s suggestions: (same as on State System Capacity)
STRATEGIES (&/or their logic links)
Your Questions:
Strategy 1:
How much money is available on a consistent basis? Can we make money available on a consistent basis?
How do we measure the benefit of this activity? Is there a benefit?
Do non-funded partners take advantage of this opportunity? How do we get them to?
Do communities see a value in this resource? What is it?
Strategy 3:
Are funding priorities and benchmarks clear to communities?
What is the “name recognition” of SAP and SAPF funds?
Is there an appropriate level of transparency to our funding process?
Do we have a process for measuring the effectiveness of our funding process?
Are we implementing funding best practices?
Are funding priorities and priority capacities different for funded and non-funded partners? DO they need to be?
Strategies 7,8,11:
Do the resources and activities match the assessment results (S4)?
Do communities agree with the assessment results (S4)? Do they value addressing the identified gaps?
Will the activities lead to changes in the priority capacities?
Do communities use/value the manuals and resources, attend trainings, etc?
Are the resources useful/valuable without attached funding?
Strategy 5:
Do the plan and priority capacity development activities reflect the uniqueness of the work or are they redundant with other resources?
Do the plan and the priority capacity development activities go beyond just 101? (How do we get to 201?)
What is the role of the SPT in supporting the development of local level capacities?
What space is there for local level to ID their needs? (Can also apply to S11)
Do CDPHE policies and procedures encourage honesty and trust in relationships with partners?
Strategy 10:
Do non-funded partners bring diversity and breadth to the grantee pool? How do we capitalize on this?
Can we measure capacity shifts in non-funded partners?
What are the most effective strategies to reach and support non-funded partners?
What type of network development is most effective in reaching non-funded partners? (Should CDPHE hold the primary relationship, or another
partner such as CAVP?)
How many non-funded partners can we effectively support? Are their different levels of support?
How many non-funded partners become funded by SAPF or another CDPHE funding source (ISVP or TGYS or …)
How many non-funded partners get additional funding (non CDPHE) because (in part) of the resources provided by SAP?
Strategy 14:
Do grantees perceive these activities as useful?
Who is actually conducting the activities? Do the trainers work for the target communities/organizations?
What is motivating communities to implement different prevention strategies?
What evidence based strategies are being implemented? Do they cover all levels of the SEM?
Julie’s suggestions:
Strategy 1:
(S1) What are our challenges and successes in our efforts to provide this particular type of funding?
(S1) Do recipients of this funding, and the communities they serve, benefit from this particular funding stream?
Strategy 3:
(Rephrased this below)What is the “name recognition” of SAP and SAPF funds?
(This is basically covered in the question below) Yes – we are creating it right now with the PE and OE evaluations.Are we implementing
funding best practices?
(this is a great question – one that should, by necessity, be addressed in the creation of these documents originally, yes?)
(S3)Are these documented priorities & benchmarks clear, comprehensive, and useful for both state-level granting committees as well as locallevel applicants?
Strategy 4:
(S4)Do communities agree with the assessment results? Do they value addressing the identified gaps?
Strategies 7,8,11:
Do the resources and activities match the assessment results (S4)?
Will the activities lead to changes in the priority capacities, as suggested by current knowledge of best practice? (as for the ACTUAL change –
this will be evaluated during the OE)
How much do local-level partners / their communities participate in trainings & activities? How do they perceive the value and utility of these
offerings? Can reasonably be addressed with above question.
Strategy 5:
This is a great question; here is a suggestion for alternative phrasing:
Does the plan (and the activities contained within it) satisfactorily reflect the unique intentions and priorities of our program? Does it avoid
redundancy and demonstrate distinction among other available resources?
Do the plan and the priority capacity development activities go beyond just 101? (How do we get to 201?) Should this be a sub-question of?:
Does our TA plan include different levels that meet the needs of locals ranging from basic to advanced capacity development needs?
What is the role of the SPT in supporting the development of local level capacities? Are these roles clearly outlined and explained within the
TA plan?
This is a great question; here is a suggestion for alternative phrasing: Does the design of the TA plan, and it’s final version, satisfactorily reflect
local-level needs as identified by locals themselves?
I rephrased and moved this to S15 below.
Strategy 10:
Do non-funded partners bring diversity and breadth to the pool of local-level partners? How do we capitalize on this in the design and
selection of MOU agreements?
Moved to S12 & S14Moved to S6
Moved to S6Moved to S9
Moved to S9
Moved to S9
Strategy 14:
Do grantees/non-funded partners perceive these TA activities as useful?
Who is actually conducting the activities? Do the trainers work for the target communities/organizations?
What is motivating communities to implement different prevention strategies?
What evidence based strategies are being prioritized / implemented? Do they cover all levels of the SEM?
Strategy 2: (this strategy seems redundant/greatly overlapping with S3; no additional questions)
Strategy 6:
What are the most effective strategies to reach and support non-funded partners?
 What type of network development is most effective in reaching non-funded partners? (Should CDPHE hold the primary relationship, or
another partner such as CAVP?)
Strategy 9:
How many non-funded partners can we effectively support? Are their different levels and/or internal sources of support?
 How many non-funded partners become funded by SAPF or another CDPHE funding source (ISVP or TGYS or …)
 How many non-funded partners get additional funding (non CDPHE) because (in part) of the resources provided by SAP?
Strategy 12:
How can we be measuring capacity shifts in non-funded partners? (also S14)
Strategy 13:
Are we moving toward local-level contribution to the state-level surveillance system with the kinds of approaches and standards of quality
we want?
Strategy 15:
Are relationships between CDPHE/SAP and local-level partners characterized by honesty and trust? What are the policies and/or procedures
most influencing the current level of honesty and trust in these relationships?
OUTPUTS (&/or their logic links)
Julie’s suggestions:





(P5) (SAME AS STATE-LEVEL P6) Are the Training & T.A. manuals clear, comprehensive, and useful for
any/all potential users (CDPHE staff, SPT members, external contractors)?
(P1) Was the conference perceived as beneficial by attendees?
(P2) Do the logic models demonstrate understanding of necessary program planning concepts? If not,
what improvements are needed?
(P3) Are the workplans organized, thorough, and derived from the logic models? If not, what
improvements are needed?
(P4) Do the evaluation plans demonstrate understanding of necessary evaluation concepts? If not,
what improvements are needed?