Money Matters: A Three-Step Process for Using Budget Data in Program Evaluation to Assess the Design and Management of a Novel Public Health Program
Advanced Search
Select up to three search categories and corresponding keywords using the fields to the right. Refer to the Help section for more detailed instructions.

Search our Collections & Repository

All these words:

For very narrow results

This exact word or phrase:

When looking for a specific result

Any of these words:

Best used for discovery & interchangable words

None of these words:

Recommended to be used in conjunction with other fields

Language:

Dates

Publication Date Range:

to

Document Data

Title:

Document Type:

Library

Collection:

Series:

People

Author:

Help
Clear All

Query Builder

Query box

Help
Clear All

For additional assistance using the Custom Query please check out our Help Page

i

Money Matters: A Three-Step Process for Using Budget Data in Program Evaluation to Assess the Design and Management of a Novel Public Health Program

Filetype[PDF-242.32 KB]


  • English
    • Details Supporting Files You May Also Like

    Details:

    • Alternative Title:
      Health Promot Pract
    • Personal Author:
    • Description:
      We applied a three-step process, abstracting and analyzing program budgets to examine how Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP) awardees are structuring their programs and to assess the fidelity of program design to the CRCCP public health model. We reviewed 23 state, one tribal organization, and six university awardee budgets. We assessed resource allocations, staffing structures, and contracted partners and their activities. Awardees allocated 83% of all funds to contracts and personnel. Program managers were the most budgeted personnel type across three measures: number of people, full-time equivalency, and personnel costs. Awardees not only contracted with health care systems and clinics (39% of all contracts) but also contracted other partner types. Contractors were mainly funded to implement evidence-based interventions (25%) and conduct evaluation (24%). Program design varied among awardees in the number of staff (0-22), number of full-time equivalencies (0-5.4), and the number of contracts (1-11) budgeted. State awardees budgeted more resources to contracts, compared with university awardees (57% vs. 31%), while universities budgeted more for total personnel costs (41% vs. 30%). We learned that awardees designed their programs with fidelity to the CRCCP model. Although implementation approaches varied, overall results suggest implementation requires a combination of internal capacities and contracted partners. Budgets provide opportunities to use already existing program data to evaluate program design, partnerships, and planned activities.
    • Keywords:
    • Source:
      Health Promot Pract. 24(1):70-75
    • Pubmed ID:
      34533380
    • Pubmed Central ID:
      PMC9301924
    • Document Type:
      Journal Article
    • Funding:
      CC999999/ImCDC/Intramural CDC HHSUnited States/
    • Collection(s):
    • Main Document Checksum:
    • Download URL:
    • File Type:

    You May Also Like

    Checkout today's featured content at stacks.cdc.gov