Resource Library

1. Introduction

The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of projects funded during fiscal year 2000-2001 by the Hepatitis C Prevention, Support and Research Program ("the Program"). The five-year Program supports local, regional and national organizations in their efforts to address hepatitis C collaboratively at the community level. This roll-up report is the second of its kind to be issued since the inception of project funding in fiscal year 1999-2000.

The report has two main objectives:

• to fulfill the Hepatitis C Program's commitment to transparency and public accountability for the effective use of dedicated resources;
• to inform and help guide the activities of the Program.

The focus of this report is on project results - intended and unintended - and on key lessons derived from the project experience. With an eye to best practice, the report identifies processes and products deemed by project organizers to have "worked". It also reviews issues arising from the year's projects with implications for the future. As well, it considers the accomplishments of the second funding year in the context of the Program's goals and objectives.

Certain factors have limited the ability of this roll-up report to provide an entirely accurate picture of project experience in the period under review. In theory, the report covers all community-based projects funded between April 1, 2000 and March 31, 2001. In practice, however, it is based on project reports and documents received on or before February 15, 2002. (Materials arriving after the deadline date were used for statistical purposes only.)

Most of the outcome-related information was based on the observations of staff/volunteers, often without the "ideal" back-up or pr oof. While front line personnel are well placed to notice changes in behaviours, attitudes, self-confidence and so forth, and to provide qualitative information on these, their reports may not on their own be considered objective.

However, taking baseline measurements, conducting valid surveys and implementing similar evaluation techniques were beyond the capacity (and resources) of most project groups. Their conclusions and observations stand to be tested over time, as results accumulate and reporting processes grow more rigorous. At this stage in the Program, however, discerning key themes and trends requires a close reading of the project "results" and reports collectively. Over time, more critical analysis of project evaluation/performance reports will be possible.

The discussion in this report covers planned as well as actual project results. This is because a considerable number of projects (both completed and incomplete) did not submit their reports by the deadline date, making it necessary to consult various " pre-project" documents, such as funding application forms and project summaries, for information on anticipated outputs and outcomes. It should also be noted that, among those projects that did submit reports, there were wide variations in the reporting formats adopted¹, the level of detail supplied, the interpretations given to key terms and - where evaluation information was provided - the evaluation approaches taken.

Project groups faced many other evaluation challenges. For example, although some of the results they achieved were quite tangible (e.g., outputs such as training sessions, pamphlets, plays, etc), the effectiveness of these outputs may remain in question. Do they actually work? And, if they appear to work, is the result necessarily attributable to the particular output? When many influences are at play - for example, press articles, radio call-in shows, friends sharing knowledge - is there any valid basis for attributing positive results solely to project activities? At best, the project is but one of many factors, known and unknown, working in concert to affect the client population. Furthermore, meaningful results may only be observable over time. Succumbing to pressure to wrap things up quickly, project groups can be tempted to make definitive claims/statements too early on.

The preparation of this report entailed the following steps. All project materials supplied were examined in detail, including funding applications forms, work plans, project reports (activity, interim, annual, evaluation) and outputs. In the case of projects without reports, published project summaries (1999-2000, 2000-2001) were examined. On the basis of these materials, profiles of each individual project were prepared, by year and region, highlighting the critical information, relevant quotes, etc. Using these profiles, which had been reviewed and revised where necessary by regional project consultants, synthesis documents were then compiled, detailing (by funding/fiscal year, region and project)

1. Project Partners,
2. Priority Populations,
3. Determinants of Health Addressed,
4. Outputs,
5. Outcomes (intended and unintended),
6. Client/Community Involvement,
7. What Worked,
8. What Did Not Work, and a broad category entitled Learnings.

In a further set of documents, all project outputs were sorted by year and type of output - e.g., Gatherings (consultation/planning, education/information, training, support groups); Campaigns/media coverage (education, fundraising, media [print/tv/radio]; Resources (print/audiovisual, collections, virtual/electronic, displays/booths/events, dramatic presentations); Planning/strategy tools (action plans/strategies, needs assessments, literature reviews, evaluations); and Models/programs/approaches. Regions and project sponsors were identified for each output, in brackets. The same process was followed with respect to project outcomes (changes achieved and/or planned), which were subdivided by target audience and type of outcome (e.g., knowledge, skills, health behaviours/attitudes, health and quality of life, social environments, mechanisms, systems/structures, etc).

The foregoing synthesis documents formed the basis for the detailed analysis, with successive drafts of the report being circulated to all relevant staff members (national and regional) for comments and feedback.

[Previous] [Table of Contents] [Next]