I would like to briefly describe the four evaluation tools utilized by 
the CSHP Task Force as part of the participatory action research model 
used by the Opening Doors Project. Each community used all four of these 
tools as a way of understanding their community better. I'll tell you 
about how we used them in Pocatello. The first tool—a community 
map—helped us to identify resources and gaps in services and provided a 
visual depiction of our local agencies and organizations. 

In the beginning stages of the mapping process, there was a struggle 
with who belonged in the center of the universe. It was decided that the 
child and their family are the central feature of our map. The task 
force agreed that the physicians, early intervention program, and other 
community agencies would take their places around the family. Once that 
occurred, the mapping process began to flow. 

Our first version of the map was similar to "parallel play." Agencies 
and organizations are side by side, doing similar things, but not 
interacting very much. Note the key in the upper left indicates the type 
of services each organization provides. Our second map—completed two 
years later—shows interlocking pieces and represents a number of changes 
in the community. With each mapping, a subcommittee volunteered to 
create a draft map, and when the larger task force provided additional 
input, our product was more detailed and comprehensive. 

A second tool is the Service Integration Matrix first developed by Ellen 
Konrad and adapted by Opening Doors. The matrix helped our task force to 
think about and depict pre-, mid-, and post-levels of community service 
integration. As with the mapping, a subcommittee worked through the 
matrix and presented a draft to the Task Force for comment. The matrix 
gives a visual representation of service integration. More importantly, 
the matrix: 

* Promoted rich discussion about key issues 
* Allowed for ah-ha experiences; and 
* Helped us to set goals for relationship building in the community and 
with stakeholders on the state level. 

Notice where we began as indicated with "p" on the map (very limited 
information sharing and connection) to mid point "1999" and moving to 
our expected or "i" ideal in the spring of 2001. Wow! We were amazed 
when we saw the comparison. In fact, I'll use a phrase that my 
5-year-old grandson said recently, "It was amazable." 

The third measure was the Community Self-Assessment. It provided 
detailed information on items such as: 

* The number of children receiving services in various programs 
* The number of providers available 
* Health care issues. 

A statistician from Idaho State University compiled much of the data 
through publications and resources at the University. Following the 
compilation, the Task Force worked through this survey with lengthy 
discussions, with particular emphasis on qualitative items on the 
Community Self-Assessment, such as 

* Our barriers to service integration 
* Or the degree to which programs were sensitive to the cultural needs 
of families. 

This tool gave us a broad overview of services across all programs, 
brought us to a common understanding, and separated the ideal versus the 
real in our community. 

Finally, the fourth tool, the Family Satisfaction Phone Survey, provided 
family input about the service delivery systems and accessibility to 
those systems. Opening Doors hired a parent of a child with a disability 
who conducted the phone interviews for parents in all four communities. 
Because this parent interviewer had "walked in the same shoes," it 
helped our families be more at ease and willing to complete the phone 
interview. The Task Force reviewed the survey results and discussed 
potential outcomes for children, families, and systems.