| 27
•Once the CM creates a bond with the client, it is important to pay close heed to the client’s concerns and
fears, or run the risk of creating feelings of distrust
and abandonment.
•Clients may feel vulnerable, especially if law enforcement is involved. Their fear of a CM revealing vital
information to law enforcement may cause them to
regress. HVIPs can obtain certificates of confidentiality
from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Step 6: Evaluation—
Based on CDC’s recommended broad
outline of how to evaluate a community-based injury prevention program with
the public health model in mind
•Evaluation starts day one
Ȗ Most critical to evaluation process: There is more
to evaluation than just capturing recidivism
Ȗ Intermediate and surrogate measures (for
example, finding employment)
Ȗ Qualitative outcomes
•Evaluation standards
Ȗ Reach (for example, are CMs conducting bedside
interventions before discharge?)
Ȗ Feasibility (for example, is the target population
being enrolled and staying enrolled?)
Ȗ Functionality
•CM evaluation
Ȗ Are CMs “connecting” with
the target population?
Ȗ Are CMs conducting a needs assessment?
Ȗ Are CMs finding appropriate risk-reduction
resources in the community?
•Process outcomes: Are clients sticking with resources?
If not, why not?
Ȗ School
Ȗ Employment
Ȗ Mental health follow-up
Ȗ Staying connected to their CMs
• Long-term outcomes
Ȗ Injury and criminal recidivism
Ȗ Qualitative value of program
Ƒ Qualitative analysis—critical in understanding
the inherent value of the programs not
captured in the typical quantitative measures
; Semi-structured interviews and evaluation
for common themes can reveal value
not captured by other measures
Ȗ Cost-effectiveness analysis
V. Potential pitfalls
•Evaluation as an afterthought will lead to lack of
evidence
• Poor enrollment of target population occurs if programs
do not reassess registry data to expose at-risk groups
•Programs need to adapt to address unforeseen
population/resource changes
•Singular evaluation of outcomes, such as recidivism,
misses nuanced value of programs
Case study: Robert joined a violence prevention program after being hospitalized for his second violent
injury. When he recovered from his injury, his CM,
who had assessed his needs, accompanied him to mental health services for three months. Robert’s anxiety
was improving, and he felt ready to work. The CM
was able to help place him in a program in which Robert would learn how to be an arborist. This program
paid a stipend and had the potential of landing him a
permanent job. Robert stuck with the program and
