Aiming to develop a utilization-focused evaluation approach, this article presents the process of developing culturally competent evaluation guidelines for Tobacco Control programs with American Indian/Alaska Natives, African Americans, Asian/Pacific Islanders, Hispanic/Latinos, LGBT, low–socioeconomic status populations, and rural populations. Through literature reviews and an interactive process that engages tobacco control program practitioners throughout the state of California, a UC Davis evaluation center developed a series of culture-specific guidelines for use in process and outcome evaluations. The norm change approach of the California Department of Public Health is contrasted with the norms of the priority populations it serves to determine why these populations are less responsive to the strategy than mainstream populations and points to ways in which evaluation activities can contribute to achieving greater inclusion of minority populations in tobacco control program efforts.
BotchevaL.ShihJ.HuffmaL. C. (2009). Emphasizing cultural competence in evaluation: A process oriented approach. American Journal of Evaluation, 30, 176-188.
2.
California Department of Health Services. (2008). Communities of excellence in tobacco control. CX. A framework for assessing community tobacco control needs & developing, implementing and evaluating a tobacco control plan. Module II priority populations. Retrieved from http://www.tcspartners.org/Main/WebSite/pp-Module2Final.pdf (password required)
ChouinardJ. A.CousinsJ. B. (2007). Culturally competent evaluation for aboriginal communities: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 4(8), 40-57.
6.
ConnerF. S. (2004). Developing and implementing culturally competent evaluation: A discussion of multicultural validity in two HIV prevention programs for Latinos. New Directions for Evaluation, 102, 51-65.
CrossT.BazronB.DennisK.IssacsM. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Washington University Child Development Center, CASSP Technical Assistance Center.
FriersonH. T.HoodS.HughesG. B. (2002). Strategies that address culturally responsive evaluation: A guide to conducting culturally responsive evaluation. In FrechtlinJ. (Ed.), The 2002 user-friendly handbook for project evaluation. Arlington, VA: The National Science Foundation.
12.
HopsonR. (2003). Multicultural health evaluation; Overview of multicultural and culturally competent program evaluation: Issues, challenges and opportunities. The California Endowment, Woodland Hills, CA. Retrieved from http://calendow.org/Collection_Publications.aspx?coll_id=74&ItemID=416#
13.
MacDonaldG.GarciaD.ZazaS.SchooleyM.ComptonD.BryantT.. . . HaverkateR. (2008). Steps to a Healthier US Cooperative Agreement Program: Foundational elements for program evaluation planning, implementation, and use of findings. Preventing Chronic Disease, 3(1). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jan/05_0136.htm
SenGuptaS.HopsonR.Thompson-RobinsonM. (2004). Cultural competence in evaluation: An overview. New Directions for Evaluation, 102, 5-19.
19.
Shui-ThorntonS. (2003). Addressing cultural competency in research: Integrating a community-based participatory research approach. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27, 1361-1364.
20.
StevensP. (2008). LGBT Populations and Tobacco: 2nd edition. Atlanta, GA: Tobacco Technical Assistance Consortium, Emory University. Retrieved from http://www.ttac.org/lgbt/2nd
21.
TangH.CowlingD. W.KoumjianK.RoeselerA.LloydJ.RogersT. (2002). Building local program capacity: Toward a comprehensive evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 95, 39-56.
