Intimate Partner Violence
To grant support for intimate partner violence at the national, state and local levels by
addressing determinants of health of society and community.
To create coalitions among the states and local communities that integrate to their
organizational structures and practices primary prevention principles, resources and
training to provide primary prevention for intimate partner violence.
To avoid first-time perpetration and first-time victimization episodes of intimate partner
violence by integrating and supporting coordinated community responses (CCRs)
focusing on a multiple socio-ecological model.
Time Frame: 5 year plan.
Start Date: Jun/27/2015
Process Objective 1: By September 30 of 2015, all IPV state coalitions will be identified for
Process Objective 2: By December 17 of 2015, all state coalitions will participate in at least
one recruitment national meeting.
Process Objective 3: By February 11 of 2016, at least 4 health educators will be trained to
provide prevention-focused training to each local CCRs.
Outcome Objective 1 (Short Term): By March 21 of 2015, 60% of the state coalitionswill increase
theirknowledgeabout howDELTA worksby 75%.
Outcome Objective 2 (Intermediate Term): By July 29 of 2016, at least 50% of the state
coalitions will be part of the Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancement and Leadership
Through Alliances (DELTA).
Outcome Objective 3 (Intermediate Term): By August 13 of 2016, at least 90% of CCRs will
be trained by the health educators on how to provide prevention-focused training.
Outcome Objective 4: (Long Term): By June 27of 2017, 27% less reports of first time IPV
episodes will be reported.
Outcome Objective 5 (Long Term): By August 20 of 2020, a decrease of 45% will be
reflected on the overall rates of IPV.
Process Evaluation Questions
1. What training has the group done for coalition members and other professionals?
2. What is the coalition doing together that is really working well?
3. What are the major problems facing the coalition?
4. Are there unanticipated outcomes that have arisen because of working together?
5. Do you encounter any problem in the delivery of the program?
6. How useful and relevant you think is the information provided for the health
Outcome Evaluation Questions
1. Was the program more successful in some states than in others?
2. What aspects of the program did allies find more beneficial?
3. Has being part of DELTA changed or improved something in the community you
4. What unexpected outcomes, if any, have resulted from the program?
5. What can be modified to make the program more effective?
(Short, intermediate and long
P. Objective 1:
Curricula By Sept. 30 of 2015,
40 state coalitions
will be identified.
P. Objective 2:
of 2015 100% of
P. objective 3:
4 healtheducators By February11 of
2016, 4 health
each local CCRs.
O. Objective 1:
Curricula By March 21 of 2015,
60% of the state
their knowledge about
how DELTA works by
O. Objective 2:
Curricula By July29 of 2016, at
least50% of the state
of the Domestic
O. Objective 3:
Weeklytrainingsessions CCRs trainedon
By August13 of
2016, at least90% of
CCRs will be trained
by the health
O. Objective 4:
Creationof data collection
By June 27of 2017,
O. Objective 5:
Creationof data collection
By August20 of
2020, a decrease of
45% will be reflected
on the overall rates