HISTORY OF EVALUATION
Mike Nordos
WORKGROUP ORIGIN
• Three Delegation Agreement Advisory Council
recommendations:
• Separation of “operational” and “statutory” language
• Creation of a “Best Practices Manual”
• Creation of a workgroup to define program
evaluation and create a uniform evaluation
process.
WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
• Evaluation Workgroup:
• Ten representatives from delegated
agencies, representing rural, urban and
suburban populations
• Five MDH staff
• Meetings:
• Bi-Monthly for approximately 18 months
WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
Smaller Cities
• Jeff Luedeman, Bloomington
• Manny Camilon, St. Louis Park
Small Non-Metro Counties
• Karen Swenson, Brown/Nicollet
• Mark Anderson, Morrison
Large Cities
• Tim Jenkins, Minneapolis
• Peter Kishel, St. Paul
Large Non-Metro Counties
• Dawn Beck and
• Dan DeLano, Olmsted
WORKGROUP MEMBERSHIP
Metro Counties
• Dan Disrud, Anoka
• Angie Wheeler, Washington
MDH
• Michael Nordos, Moderator
• Deborah Durkin
• James Feddema
• Geri Maki
• Cathy Odinot
• Tom Sobolik
• Wendy Spanier
EVALUATION HISTORY
• Conducted by senior, FDA standardized State
Sanitarians.
• Occurred every 3 to 5 years using FDA evaluation
protocols for food; MDH protocols for other programs
• Evaluations from 1980 through the late 1990’s
included records review and field inspections.
• (Field inspections discontinued in 1997.)
EVALUATION HISTORY
• Evaluations focused on:
• inspection frequency in accordance with
statute or delegation agreement
• proper identification of ‘’violations”
• clear and concise correction orders and
standard report writing; and
• follow-up procedures.
WORKGROUP CHALLENGES
• Resource issues
• Fair and efficient appeals process
• Effectiveness (value) of the evaluation report
• Recognition of program diversity
• Best practices versus legal requirements
• Perceived evaluation process issues in the past
WORKGROUP CHALLENGES
• Qualifications and objectivity of evaluation staff
• Choice of standards for evaluation
• Product and process applicable to MDH and
local programs
• Maintaining a public health focus
• Collaboration-building
• Information sharing vs. data and program
privacy
PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
The purpose of the program evaluation is to ensure
that minimum program standards put forth in
Minnesota Statutes, Rules and the Delegation
Agreement are in place and maintained, in order
to protect public health. (MDH Evaluation Protocol)
• That was just the beginning……………
EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
• Systematically review and continuously improve
environmental health services programs
• Achieve core program consistency;
• Reinforce public health goals;
• Improve and maintain public health outcomes
• Discover and share program excellence
EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
• Inform policy, planning and resource allocation
• Assist in achieving best practices
• Create a culture of accountability
• Create an environment where open
communication between delegated programs
and MDH becomes the standard.
EVALUATION GOAL
Continuous
Improvement Cycle
Self
Assessment
Improvement
Program
Implementation
Evaluation
Program
Planning
WORKGROUP PRODUCTS
• Evaluation Protocol
• Randomization Procedure
• Frequency Matrix
• Evaluation Survey Tools
• Field Inspection Reports
• Evaluation Summary Report