HPME is a recognized expert in public health program evaluation within the DoD.

We are comprised of more than 20 highly-skilled scientists and analysts trained in public health, behavior change, evaluation, measurement, statistics, survey design and development, qualitative methods, psychology, and community-based participatory research.

We use a wide variety of available evaluation methods to execute evaluation projects to assure the effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of public health programs, policies, and initiatives in support of the DoD.

Our Vision​​

HPME strives to be the DoD's leading expert in, and advocate for, comprehensive evaluation promoting evidence-driven public health practice.

Our Services

The HPME Branch offers a comprehensive suite of evaluation services in support of the DHA. In each of our projects, we generate actionable recommendations to improve a program, policy, or initiative's functioning, effectiveness, impact and relevance.

Our Approach

The HPME​ Branch utilizes the public health evaluation framework established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to guide our work. The below image is a depiction of this framework provided by the CDC on its website: CDC Program Evaluation Framework

Steps in the Program Evaluation Process

• Assess the Context. Understanding a program's context sets the stage for meaningful, actionable, and culturally responsive evaluation. This can include the various features of an evaluation's setting, such as location and environment, people and their cultural values, historical circumstances, ways that power and privilege play, and other pertinent characteristics. Key points: Evaluations are influenced by the context in which the evaluation is situated, evaluability assessment that examines evaluation readiness, relevant interest holder mapping, and documentation of place-based context, evaluation capacity assessment, and evaluator readiness assessment.
  
• Describe the Program. Describe the program to be evaluated by identifying the intended outcomes and the key activities expected to lead to those outcomes. The program description should be clear and concise with enough detail to facilitate an understanding of the program roadmap. This step is vital because it lays the foundation for the rest of your evaluation. Investing time and effort to accurately describe the program will help ensure success as you further plan and implement the evaluation. Key points: Logic models, one-page graphic description of the program to be evaluated, and a narrative description of the program.
• Focus the Evaluation Question and Design. Identify what aspects of the program to evaluate. Use the priorities and information needs from interest holders identified and the logic model to focus the evaluation questions and design. Prioritize what is important to understand and identify a culturally responsive evaluation design that accommodates the program context and resources while also incorporating relevant evaluation standards. Key points: Collaboratively engage with interest holders to focus the evaluation efforts and develop the most appropriate evaluation design, purpose statement, types of evaluation to be conducted, list of intended users and uses of findings, list of evaluation questions, and description of the overarching evaluation design.
• Gather Credible Evidence. Determine the evidence needed to answer the evaluation questions. E​valuators will develop a data collection strategy, which involves the selection of data sources and associated measures that align with the evaluation purpose and questions. Key product: A data collection strategy defining expectations for credible evidence, methods used, indicators, and associated measures of interest, and data sources.
• Generate and Support Conclusions. Once we have gathered our evidence, we analyze and interpret the evidence to make meaning of the data we've collected. We also generate actionable recommendations to improve a program, policy, ​or initiative based on what we have learned. Key products: Data analysis and interpretation plan, and recommendations based on analytic findings.​
  
• Act on Findings. Facilitating the use of evaluation findings requires planning, collaboration, and commitment from the evaluators and interest holders to act on these findings and recommendations. Since evaluation findings do not translate into action automatically, this step is an essential element in the evaluation cycle. Key products: Anticipated use of the evaluation findings by interest holders, communication, reporting, and dissemination strategy, and relevant evaluation product(s) on which the interest holders can act.

Program Evaluation Standards

• ​Relevance and Utility: Evaluations should focus on useful information that is important to the interest holders. Their findings should be actionable and available in time for use. They should be presented in a way that is understandable, culturally responsive, and informative.
• Rigor: Evaluations should produce findings that interest holders can confidently rely upon while also providing clear explanations of limitations. The rigor of an evaluation is highly dependent on thoughtful planning and implementation of the underlying design and methods, as well as how findings are interpreted and reported.
• Independence and Objectivity: Evaluations should strive to be as independent and objective as possible so that interest holders, experts, and the public will accept their findings. Evaluation activities should be appropriately insulated from political and other undue influences that may affect their objectivity, impartiality, and professional judgement.
• Ethics: Evaluations should be conducted to the highest ethical standards to maintain trust in the process and products. Evaluations should be equitable, fair, and just, and should consider cultural and contextual factors that could influence the findings or their use.​
  

​Cross-Cutting Actions

• ​Engage Collaboratively: Evaluators can facilitate co-ownership of the program evaluation with interest holders. By doing so, the evaluator can increase the validity of the evaluation findings and improve the likelihood that results are used by interest holders. This collaboration starts at the beginning of the evaluation planning process and continues into the implementation and interpretation phases. 
  
• Advance Equity: Health equity is defined as the state in which everyone has a fair and just opportunity to obtain their highest levels of health. Evaluators can help advance equity and eliminate health inequities in many ways. By using collaborative and equitable evaluation approaches to create environments where everyone is respected and heard. By considering the effects of potential decisions and their impact on the advancement of equity throughout each step of the framework and when applying the standards. By proceeding with cultural responsiveness and recognition of shared experiences to integrate the uniqueness of each context into the design and implementation of an evaluation. And by conducting evaluations that uncover factors perpetuating health inequities.
  
• Learn From and Use Insights: Evaluators also serve as facilitators for continuous learning , use of findings, and improvement through evaluation. Successful evaluators build relationships, cultivate trust, and model the way for interest holders to see value and utility in evaluation insights. 
  

Publications 

• Gomez, S. A., Beymer, M. R., Jackson Santo, T., Riviere, L. A., Adler, A. B., Thomas, J. L., Millikan Bell, A., & Quartana, P. J. (2022). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Army families: Household finances, familial experiences, and soldiers' behavioral health. Military Psychology, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2022.214919​0    ​
  
• Santo, T. J., Brown, J. A., Gomez, S. A., & Shirey, L. A. (2021). The Role of Program Evaluation in Keeping Army Health “Army Strong”: Translating Lessons Learned Into Best Practices. Military medicine. https://academic.oup.com/milmed/advance-article/doi/10.1093/milmed/usab516/6485114
  
• Via, C., Gomez, S.A.Q., Jarka, M., Gibson, C., Rivera, L.O., Erickson, P., Dodd, M. (2021). Assessing the Impact of the U.S. Army Wellness Centers on Soldier and Other Clients’ Goal-Related Improvements in Health Behaviors and Chronic Disease Risk Factors [Poster presentation]. Military Health System Research Symposium. https://phc.amedd.army.mil/PHC%20Resource%20Library/pha-awc-impact-on-health-poster.pdf
• Coleman, A. M., Hartzell, M. M., Oh, R. C., Funari, T. S., Rivera, L. O. (2020). Improving Resilience and Combating Burnout in US Army Health Care Teams. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 33(3), 440-445. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2020.03.190350 https://www.jabfm.org/content/33/3/440
  
• Chukwura, C., Santo, T., Waters, C., & Andrews, A. (2019). ‘Nutrition is out of our control’: Soldiers’ perceptions of their local food environment. Public Health Nutrition, 22(15), 2766-2776. doi: 10.1017/S1368980019001381 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1368980019001381
  
• Grattan, L. E., Mengistu, B. S., Bullock, S. H., Santo, T. J., & Jackson, D. D. (2019). Restricting Retail Hours of Alcohol Sales within an Army Community. Military Medicine, 184(9-10), e400–e405. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz044  https://academic.oup.com/milmed/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/milmed/usz044/5429214
  
• Gomez, S., Bullock, S. H., Santo, T. J., Korona-Bailey, J. A., McDannald, J. J., & Resta, J. J. (2019). Marching on the Road to Quality: Army Public Health Experience Adopting NACCHO's Roadmap to a Culture of Quality Framework. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 25(6), 598–601. doi: 10.1097/PHH.0000000000001000  https://journals.lww.com/jphmp/Abstract/publishahead/Marching_on_the_Road_to_Quality__Army_Public.99385.aspx#pdf-link
  
• Melton, J. J., Shirey, L. A., Barraza, E. M., & Bullock, S. H. (2019). Public Health Accreditation of Army Preventive Medicine Departments: Improving Military Medical Treatment Facility Practice to Impact Force Readiness. Military Medicine, 184(5-6), 117-121. doi: 10.1093/milmed/usy308.  https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/184/5-6/117/5194151#
  
• Rivera, L. O., Ford, J. D., Hartzell, M. M., & Hoover, T. A.  (2018). An Evaluation of Army Wellness Center Clients' Health-Related Outcomes. American Journal of Health Promotion, 32(7), 1526-1536. doi: 10.1177/0890117117753184 
  http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/WVnm9Z8v872TtQGKwCs2/full
  
• Santo, T. J., Ellis, S., Rivera, L. O., Vasquez, L. E., Francis, M. M., Jin, W. K., McRae, K. A., & Place, R. J. (2017). A Tobacco-Free Medical Campus Policy Is Associated With Decreased Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Increased Satisfaction Among Military Medical Employees: Results of a Mixed-Methods Evaluation​." Military Medicine, 182(5-6), e1724-e1732. doi: 10.7205/MILMED-D-16-00153 https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/182/5-6/e1724/4158858
  
• U.S. Army Public Health Center. (2016, November). FY15-16 Performance Triad FORSCOM Pilot Evaluation Executive Summary. https://p3.amedd.army.mil/Worksheets/P3_FORSCOM_ProgramEvaluationSummary20161104.pdf
• Courie, A. F., Rivera, M. S., & Pompey, A. (2014). Managing public health in the Army through a standard community health promotion council model. U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, 82–90. https://hrcoe.amedd.army.mil/cac-docs/journal/2014/Jul-Sep2014.pdf#toolbar=0
  
• Jackson, T. K., Cable, S. J., Jin, W. K., Robinson, A., Dennis, S. D., Vo, L. T., Prosser, T. J., & Rawlings, J. A. (2013). The importance of leadership in Soldiers' nutritional behaviors: results from the Soldier Fueling Initiative program evaluation. U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, 79–90. https://hrcoe.amedd.army.mil/cac-docs/journal/2013/Oct-Dec2013.pdf#toolbar=0​  ​