2011 · Raport · Chorwacki
Izvještaj evaluacijskog tima za Vijeće za prevenciju Grada Splita: procjena spremnosti, potreba i resursa
Bašić, J., Mihić, J., Novak, M., & Grozić-Živolić, S.
Bašić, J., Mihić, J., Novak, M., & Grozić-Živolić, S. (2011). Izvještaj evaluacijskog tima za Vijeće za prevenciju Grada Splita: procjena spremnosti, potreba i resursa. Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Edukacijsko-rehabilitacijski fakultet, Odsjek za poremećaje u ponašanju, for the UNDP–Ministry of the Interior project „Unaprjeđenje rada na izgradnji sustava prevencije kriminaliteta i podrška osnivanju koordinacijske jedinice za prevenciju kriminaliteta“ (2008–2011); hosted by Grad Split. split.hr/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/API/Entries/Download?language=hr-HR&Command=Core_Download&EntryId=4065&PortalId=0
Ta strona nie jest jeszcze dostępna w Twoim języku. Czytasz wersję angielską.
Streszczenie
Report of the Zagreb faculty's evaluation team to the City of Split's prevention council within a joint UNDP and Ministry of the Interior project (2008–2011) that sought a working model for prevention councils across Croatia; Split (the second-largest city) and Čakovec were the pilot councils. The team applied the first four of the six steps of the Croatian adaptation of Communities That Care (readiness and mobilisation, needs, resources, priorities) between June and November 2010. Readiness was rated with the Tri-Ethnic Center's Community Readiness Model in telephone interviews with 12 of the 18 council members, supplemented by focus groups (14 council members, 26 district presidents, 8 citizens), four key-leader interviews, the CTC pupil questionnaire (922 pupils: 299 primary, 623 secondary), a community survey (191 citizens), a problem checklist (116) and a coalition questionnaire (8). Overall readiness scored 3.21, stage 3 of nine (vague awareness), with dimensions between 2.75 (community climate) and 3.92 (existing prevention efforts). Priorities were early drinking, availability and use of other substances, situational prevention and support for volunteering and prosocial engagement. The team recommends investing in the council's capacity first and choosing at most two priority areas. It is a needs and readiness assessment, not an outcome evaluation.