Essentials for Childhood: Preventing ACEs Evaluation and Surveillance Survey

Att. 6a Evaluation and Surveillance Survey Screenshot.pdf

[NCIPC] Reporting of the Essentials for Childhood (EfC): Preventing Adverse Childhood Experiences through Data to Action Program

Essentials for Childhood: Preventing ACEs Evaluation and Surveillance Survey

OMB: 0920-1425

Document [pdf]
Download: pdf | pdf
Form Approved
OMB No: xxxx-xxxx
Exp. Date: xx-xx-xxxx
Public Reporting burden of this collection of information is estimated at 1 hours, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to CDC/ATSDR Reports Clearance Officer, 1600 Clifton Road NW, MS D-74, Atlanta, GA 30333; Attn: PRA (xxxxxxxx).

Essentials	for	Childhood:	Preventing	ACEs	Evaluation	and	Surveillance	Survey
1. Please	describe	your	general	responsibilities	for	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing
Adverse	Childhood	Experiences	through	Data	to	Action.

2. In	which	state	is	your	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood
Experiences	through	Data	to	Action	organization	doing	work?

3. Is	your	evaluation	role	internal	to	the	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse
Childhood	Experiences	through	Data	to	Action	recipient	organization	or	external	(e.g.,
contractor)?
Internal
External

4. If	your	role	is	external,	please	describe	your	employer	(e.g.,	contracting	agency).

5. 5.What	percentage	of	your	time	is	dedicated	to	evaluation	for	Essentials	for	Childhood
(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood	Experiences	through	Data	to	Action?
0

50

100

6. In	what	ways	did	the	surveillance	capacity	assessment	(completed	in	Year	1)	inform
surveillance,	program,	and	data	to	action	planning?

7. In	what	ways	did	the	prevention	or	program	capacity	assessment	(completed	in	Year	1)
inform	surveillance,	program,	and	data	to	action	planning?

8. In	what	ways	did	the	surveillance	capacity	assessment	(completed	in	Year	1)	inform
surveillance,	program,	and	data	to	action	planning?

9.	In	what	ways	did	the	data	dissemination	and	data	to	action	plan	(completed	in	Year	1,	and
updated	annually)	inform	your	surveillance,	program,	and	data	to	action	planning?	

10.	How	would	you	rate	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood
Experiences	through	Data	to	Action’s	capacity	to	evaluate	ACEs	and	PCEs	surveillance
activities?	extremely	low	
extremely	low
moderately	low
adequate
moderately	difficult
extremely	high

11.	How	would	you	rate	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood
Experiences	through	Data	to	Action’s	capacity	to	evaluate	ACEs	prevention	activities?	
extremely	low
moderately	low
adequate
moderately	high
extremely	high

12.	How	would	you	rate	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood
Experiences	through	Data	to	Action’s	capacity	to	evaluate	ACEs	and	PCEs	data	to	action
activities?	
extremely	low
moderately	low
adequate
moderately	high
extremely	high

13.	Please	provide	a	brief	description	of	your	ratings	for	your	evaluation	capacity	for	ACEs
and	PCEs	surveillance,	prevention,	and	data	to	action	activities.	

14.	To	what	extent	has	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood
Experiences	through	Data	to	Action’s	made	progress	(to	date)	towards	building	your	ACEs
and	PCEs	surveillance	capacity,	implementing	your	selected	ACEs	prevention	strategies,	and
using	your	data	to	inform	programmatic	action?	Please	base	your	responses	on	your	most
recent	evaluation	findings.

How	has	the	quality	of	ACEs	and	PCEs	surveillance	changed	as	a	result	of	the	Essentials	for
Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood	Experiences	through	Data	to	Action	funding?
Please	describe	in	detail	the	dimensions	in	quality	of	the	ACEs	and	PCEs	surveillance	system.

15.	What	has	been	the	ONE	greatest	facilitator	for	building	your	comprehensive	ACEs	and
PCEs	youth-based	surveillance	and	data	to	action	system?	

16.	What	has	been	the	ONE	greatest	barrier	in	building	your	comprehensive	ACEs	and	PCEs
youth-based	surveillance	and	data	to	action	system?	

17.	How	difficult	has	it	has	been	to	add	and	sustain	inclusion	of	the	core	ACEs	items,	and	at
least	one	PCE	item,	on	your	selected	youth-based	surveillance	system?	Describe	any
challenges.	

18.	What	has	been	the	greatest	facilitator	for	adding	and	sustaining	inclusion	of	the	core
ACEs	items,	and	at	least	one	PCE	item,	on	your	selected	youth-based	surveillance	system?	

19.	How	difficult	it	has	been	to	use	social	determinants	of	health	data	to	effectively	monitor
social	and	structural	inequities	that	may	contribute	to	inequities	in	ACEs?	Describe	any
challenges.	

20.	What	has	been	the	greatest	facilitator	of	using	social	determinants	of	health	data	to
effectively	monitor	social	and	structural	inequities	that	may	contribute	to	inequities	in	ACEs?

21.	How	have	you	used	synthesized	data	from	across	data	sources	to	inform	your	prevention
strategies?	

22.	How	difficult	has	it	been	to	identify	partnerships	to	ensure	access	to	and	dissemination	of
needed	data?	
Very	Easy
Somewhat	Easy
Neither	Easy	or	Difficult
Somewhat	Difficult
Very	Difficult

23.	How	difficult	has	it	been	to	maintain	partnerships	to	ensure	access	to	and	dissemination
of	needed	data?	
Very	Easy
Somewhat	Easy
Neither	Easy	or	Difficult
Somewhat	Difficult
Very	Difficult

24.	OPTIONAL	RECIPIENTS	ONLY:	How	has	use	of	near-real	time	syndromic	surveillance
data	enhanced	your	surveillance	and	data	to	action	efforts	to	monitor	indicators	of	ACEs?	

25.	OPTIONAL	RECIPIENTS	ONLY:	How	has	use	of	linked	ACEs	and	PCEs	youth-based
surveillance	and	social	determinants	of	health	data	enhanced	your	capacity	to	understand
how	ACES	and	PCEs	are	associated	with	structural	inequities?	

26.	OPTIONAL	RECIPIENTS	ONLY:	How	has	use	of	linked	ACEs	and	PCEs	youth-based
surveillance	and	social	determinants	of	health	data	enhanced	your	capacity	to	allocate
prevention	resources	to	communities	with	disproportionate	need	due	to	structural	inequities?

27.	To	date,	what	progress	has	been	made	reaching	populations	with	high	ACE	burden	with
ACE	prevention	strategies?	
no	progress
very	little	progress
moderate	progress
substantial	progress

28.	Please	provide	a	brief	description	for	your	rating	for	reaching	populations	with	high	ACE
burden.	

29.	Please	describe	how	your	organization	is	measuring	the	reach	of	the	program	to
individuals	and	settings	(including	populations	with	high	ACE	burden)?	Address	any
challenges	or	facilitators	affecting	this	work.	

30.	How	has	increased	dissemination	of	ACEs	and	PCEs	data	to	policymakers,	partners,	and
the	public	improved	understanding	of	ACEs,	and	how	to	prevent	them,	in	your	state?	

31.	How	has	increased	dissemination	of	ACEs	and	PCEs	data	to	policymakers,	partners,	and
the	public	improved	use	of	data	to	inform	prevention	and	intervention	efforts	in	your	state?	

32.	To	what	extent	has	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood
Experiences	through	Data	to	Action’s	made	progress	(to	date)	in	the	following	short-term
outcomes?	Please	base	your	responses	on	your	most	recent	interim	evaluation	findings.	
Not	Yet
Measured

	
Objective	1.1.
Increased	capacity
to	create,	use,	and
disseminate	data
from	a
comprehensive	ACEs
and	PCEs
surveillance	system
Objective	1.2.
Increased	state	level
collection	of	ACEs
and	PCEs	data
through	youth-based
surveillance
Objective	1.3.
Increased	capacity
to	collect	data	on	the

No	Progress

Very	Little
Progress

Moderate
Progress

Substantial
Progress

social	determinants
of	health
Objective	1.4.
Increased	access	to
ACEs	and	PCEs,	risk
and	protective
factor,	and	social
determinants	of
health	data	to	inform
prevention
strategies	and
identify	inequities
Objective	2.1.
Increased	partner
awareness	of
existing	state
prevention
strategies	and
approaches	that
address	ACEs
Objective	2.2.
Increased
coordination	and
collaboration
between	state
agencies	and	other
sectors
Objective	2.2a.
Increased
coordination	and
collaboration
between	local
agencies	and	other
sectors*
Objective	2.3.
Increased	capacity
to	implement
comprehensive	ACEs
prevention
strategies	at	the
state	level
Objective	2.3a.
Increased	capacity
to	implement
comprehensive	ACEs
prevention
strategies	at	the
local	level*
Objective	3.1.
Increased
understanding	of
state	surveillance
and	prevention
capacity	related	to
ACEs	and	PCEs
Objective	3.2.
Increased	capacity
to	use	ACEs	and
PCEs	surveillance

and	evaluation	data
to	identify	and	tailor
ACEs	prevention
strategies,	including
to	improve	health
equity,	and	the	social
determinants	of
health
Objective	3.3.
Increased	data
dissemination	on
ACEs	and	PCEs	to
state	partners,
policy-makers,	and
the	public
Objective	3.3a.
Increased	data
dissemination	on
ACEs	and	PCEs	to
local*	partners,
policy-makers,	and
the	public
Objective	3.4.
Increased
knowledge	about	the
effectiveness	of
ACEs	prevention
strategies	to
improve	health	and
wellbeing,	and
reduce	inequities

33.	Please	provide	a	brief	explanation	of	any	notable	responses	to	the	previous	question.	

34.	To	what	extent	has	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood
Experiences	through	Data	to	Action	made	progress	(to	date)	in	the	following	intermediate
outcomes?	Please	base	your	responses	on	your	most	recent	interim	evaluation	findings.	
Not	Yet
Measured

	
Objective	1.5.
Increased	state-level
monitoring	of	trends
in	ACEs	and	PCEs
over	time,	and	use	of
data	from	youth
populations
Objective	1.6.
Increased	use	of
data	on	health
inequities	and	the
social	determinants
of	health	to
contextualize	risk

No	Progress

Very	Little
Progress

Moderate
Progress

Substantial
Progress

factors	for	ACEs,
and	reduce
inequities
Objective	1.7.
Increased
sustainability	of	a
comprehensive	ACEs
and	PCEs
surveillance	system
that	informs	tailored
prevention
strategies
Objective	2.4.
Increased	uptake
and	implementation
of	comprehensive
ACEs	prevention
strategies	at	the
state	level
Objective	2.4a.
Increased	uptake
and	implementation
of	comprehensive
ACEs	prevention
strategies	at	the
local	level*
Objective	2.5.
Increased	reach	of
prevention
strategies,	with	a
focus	on
communities	with
disproportionate
needs	due	to	social
determinants	of
health
Objective	2.6.
Increased	evidence
for	population-based
approaches	to
prevent	ACEs
prevention
strategies
Objective	3.5.
Increased	use	and
translation[AK(1]		of
surveillance	and
evaluation	data	to
inform	tailored
prevention	strategy
implementation	to
reduce	ACEs	and
improve	health
equity	and	the	social
determinants	of
health
Objective	3.6.
Increased	partner
response	to	the
burden	of	ACEs	and

PCEs	in	their	state,
and	public
awareness	of
societal	factors	that
lead	to	safe,	stable,
and	nurturing
relationships	and
environments

35.	Please	provide	a	brief	explanation	of	any	notable	responses	to	the	previous	question.	

36.	As	of	today,	how	would	you	describe	your	program’s	evaluation	activities	
A	little	behind
Slowly	gearing	up
On	track
Full	steam	ahead

37.	What	challenges	have	affected	your	evaluation	progress	to	date?	

38.	What	has	facilitated	your	evaluation	progress	to	date?	

39.	To	what	extent	have	you	used	your	surveillance	and	evaluation	data?	
Not	at	all
A	little
Somewhat
A	great	deal

40.	Which	types	of	technical	assistance	and	support	from	the	CDC	and	technical	assistance
partners	have	been	useful	to	you?	

41.	How	could	technical	assistance	and	support	from	CDC	and	technical	assistance	partners
be	improved?	

42.	If	you	have	any	additional	comments	on	evaluation,	please	provide	them	here.	

43.	Sustainability
This	section	covers	efforts	to	sustain	improvements	in	ACE	surveillance	beyond	the	timeline
of	the	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood	Experiences	through
Data	to	Action	cooperative	agreement.
How	are	you	planning	to	sustain	the	implementation	of	ACE	prevention	strategies	following
the	conclusion	of	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood
Experiences	through	Data	to	Action	funding?	

44.	How	are	you	planning	to	sustain	the	use	of	ACEs	and	PCEs	data	to	inform	prevention
strategy	action	following	the	conclusion	of	Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse
Childhood	Experiences	through	Data	to	Action	funding?	

45.	How	are	you	planning	to	sustain	the	surveillance	system	following	the	conclusion	of
Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood	Experiences	through	Data	to
Action	funding?	Specifically,	describe	any	plans	to	sustain	inclusion	of	ACEs	and	PCEs	items
in	youth-based	surveillance	efforts.	

46.	How	are	you	planning	to	sustain	the	surveillance	system	following	the	conclusion	of
Essentials	for	Childhood	(EfC):	Preventing	Adverse	Childhood	Experiences	through	Data	to
Action	funding?	Specifically,	describe	any	plans	to	sustain	dissemination	of	data	to	various
audiences.	

47.	How	has	sustainability	planning	involved	discussions	with	collaborators	and	data
partners?	What	perceptions	and	values	do	these	partners	have	on	sustainability?	

48.	Is	there	anything	you	have	not	described	yet	that	you	would	like	to	add?	


File Typeapplication/pdf
File Modified2023-09-18
File Created2023-08-31

© 2024 OMB.report | Privacy Policy