PowerPoint Presentation

Setting the StageSession 4: Monitoring and Evaluation1

The self-quarantine initiative has been by and large successful with high levels of compliance among the over 10,000 potentially exposed individuals.

The behaviour change communication strategy skillfully communicated the risk, who and how had to self-quarantine, and perhaps most important encouraged the kind of community connection and resiliency such interventions hinge upon.

New cases are still being confirmed but at a much slower rate, 1000 confirmed cases of EATEX-D have been identified and 15 deaths attributed to the illness.

The self-quarantine, combined with work to remove anything infected through the food system have meant the public health officials feel confident that the chain of transmission will soon be broken. 2

But a complication has emerged. An epidemiologist tracking the outbreak has noticed that of the new cases, many share a strong geographic link: they live in the same neighbourhood.

Some follow up investigation has revealed that despite the broad compliance of the self-quarantine order, uptake in the Downville neighbourhood was comparatively low.

This area received the same information, support and engagement opportunities as all the others. Authorities are puzzled as to why Downville has not followed the recommendations to the same extent as other regions. There is no easily identifiable difference which might explain it.

But there is more than curiosity involved. Indeed, the concentrated group of citizens who have not followed the self-quarantine recommendations represent a direct threat to the entire containment strategy.

This problem has to be addressed and the first step required is to answer a simple question: Why?3What do we know?Self-quarantine initiative successfulStrong community engagement1500 cases, 150 deathsTourism Stigma Lawsuits Internal and external tensionAgreement: risk comm evaluation required 4Which key performance indicator should be the focus of the risk communication evaluation? Positive or negative media coverageLiteracy level of messagesCompliance with self-quarantine orderConsistency of communication among partnersOther

5In the risk communication evaluation strategy, which evaluation tool is the most important?Media monitoring and assessmentQuantitative pollingSocial media assessmentIndependent readability assessmentOne on one interviews with affected citizensCommunity leader interviewsOther

6Challenge of Monitoring and Evaluation

7In my experience, after an emergency or high risk event, a thorough and honest risk communication evaluation is completed Always 100%Sometimes it dependsRarely

8Challenge 1: what to evaluate?

KEY: CLEAR RISK COMMUNICATION OBJECTIVES9Challenge 2: Post Event EnvironmentBLAME GAMEEXHAUSTIONINTER-ORGANIZATIONAL TENSION10What typically happens after a serious emergency or crisis?Someone gets firedNew investments are madeNew institutions are created

11Research findings:Post event: Strategic behaviour is commonExisting inter/intra-organizational tensions do not disappearLearning is limited by the fight to limit individual and organizational accountability and protect reputations of bothLeaders get caught in the politics of blame

Commonly assumed that during crises or emergencies the reduced opportunity for bargaining, incrementalism, lowest common denominator values, restrict political actors and actionsBut research points to strategic behaviour: read slideOther factors contribute to the dynamic: 1. funding associated with the event, 2. potential reallocation of personnel and budget 3. difficulty cooperating fertile ground for miscommunication and misunderstanding

This battle of the good samaritans is commonly seen among international organizations

12DiscussionMr Andrew HOLDEN, Editor in Chief, Fairfax Media

13QuestionIn terms of emergency risk communication for public health emergencies..

WHAT DOES SUCCESS LOOK LIKE?

14Workgroup Task 1: Identifying Barriers to Success15In terms of Monitoring and Evaluation, rank the most significant barriers to success Lack of guidelines and formal evaluation proceduresInadequate budget and human resources support Weak levels of leadership engagement and endorsementLack of monitoring and evaluation training/capacityPractical tools and templates to support monitoring and evaluationOther

Workgroup Task 2: Recommendations17In terms of monitoring and evaluation, rank these abilities in terms of international best practice? Establishing clear risk communication objectives prior to and during an eventDocumenting lessons learned and releasing them publiclyReal time monitoring system (eg. Tracking media and social media activity)Integration of evaluation outcomes into preparedness/planning strategiesOther

18