The Environmental Assessment Instrument: Harnessing the Environment for Programmatic Success

Abstract

This article describes the Environmental Assessment Instrument (EAI), a tool designed to help public health professionals analyze and then engage the environment in which programs operate. The prevailing environment is an important force that must be considered in an integrated systems approach when implementing programs and policies. The Division of Oral Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention developed the EAI to facilitate the ability of a state oral health program to understand their environment and the impact it has on the achievement of performance objectives. EAI results are plotted on a four-quadrant grid that depicts four types of change—stagnant, disruptive, continuous, and sporadic. General strategies are suggested based on these categories of change. By assessing environmental influences, program and policy planners can determine salient leverage points within their environment, identify strategies to address barriers to success, and build on supportive features in the environment.

Keywords

context environmental assessment program implementation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Association of State and Territorial Directors of Health and Public Health Education. (2001). Policy and environmental change: New directions for public research. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .

Berman, P. , & McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation of educational innovation. Education Forum, 40, 347-370.

Chase, G. (1979). Implementing a human services program: How hard will it be? Public Policy, 27, 385-435.

Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia: Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis.

Fullan, M. (2000). The return of large-scale reform. Journal of Educational Change, 1, 5-28.

Goodman, R.M. , Wandersman, A. , Chinman, M. , Imm, P. , & Morrissey, E. (1996). An ecological assessment of community-based interventions for prevention and health promotion: Approaches to measuring community coalitions . American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 33-61.

Gross, N. , Giacquinta, J. , & Berstein, M. (Eds.). (1971). An approach to predicting organizational innovations: A sociological analysis of planned change in schools. New York: Basic Books.

Moss, N. (1983). An organization-environment framework for assessing program implementation. Evaluation Program Planning, 6,153-164.

Ottoson, J.M. , & Green, L.W. (1987). Reconciling concept and context: Theory of implementation . Advances in Health Education Promotion, 2, 353-382.

10.

Ozer, E.J. (2006). Contextual effects in school-based violence prevention programs: A conceptual framework and empirical review. Journal of Primary Prevention, 27, 315-340.

11.

Parsons, B. (2002). Evaluative inquiry: Using evaluation to promote student success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

12.

Pressman, J. , & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press.

13.

Strebel, P. (1992). Breakpoints: How managers exploit radical business change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.