Key Figures and Tables in Report

Figure 1:     Target Audience Participation

Table 3:      Key Questions from Student Evaluations

Table 4:      Key Questions from Student Evaluations By Location

Table 5:      Changes in Student Scores from Pre-Training Test to Post-Training Test

Figure 3:     Self-Perception of Student's Healthy Homes Knowledge

Table 6:      Barriers to Implementation of Healthy Homes Programs

Table 7:      Impact of Training on Services

Table 8:      Extent to Which Participant's Clients Benefit

The purpose of the National Healthy Homes Training Center and Network is to break down the isolation and categorical focus of local housing and health programs and to build the capacity of housing and health professionals to identify and remedy housing-related health hazards. The Training Center’s flagship course entitled, Essentials for Healthy Homes Practitioners, brings together professionals with a variety of perspectives and experiences. Course participants learn about the root causes of health problems in a home and seven principles of healthy housing that can help to resolve them. This report summarizes an evaluation of Essentials courses delivered between December 1, 2005 and July 31, 2006. The report examines the effectiveness of the training based on three indicators:

1. Quality of the training (as measured by a course evaluation form)

2. Knowledge gained by the training participants (as measured by a pre- and post-test)

3. Impact of the training on local programs and policies resulting from a trainee’s participation in the course (as measured by a follow-up on-line survey of trainees)

Ninety-five percent of students rated the courses as excellent or good – only1.8% of students rated them as fair or poor. Ninety-two percent of the respondents reported that the content of the course was relevant to their jobs and 95% would recommend the course to a colleague. Nearly 74% of respondents said they could incorporate the practices they learned into their work right away.

Students were asked to respond to the same 25 questions before and after the training. The percent of students who scored less than 71 percent on the pre-test decreased by 48 percent on the post-test. Conversely, the percent of students with passing scores on the post-test increased by approximately 33 percent. While 126 students passed with their pre-test score, 255 students passed with their post-test score, suggesting that the course was effective in expanding students’ knowledge.

A key objective of the Training Center evaluation was to examine the extent to which local programs and policies changed as a result of participation in the Training Center courses. Responses to the follow-up online survey of participants showed that 49% percent had made one or more changes to their policies or programs. For those who reported that they had made no changes as a result of the training, the most commonly cited reason was funding, followed by time, legal authority, and uncertainty regarding next steps.

In response to the follow-up survey, one student wrote: