Contact:
Mobile: 617-733-5979
Email: davidr46@gmail.com
Address: 11 Round About Way, Greenville, SC 29609
Slide Presentation: https://www.slideshare.net/davidr46
Ask A Question Here: https://forms.gle/JuwQiW1gAmGJ3huD7
This blog is for researchers, evaluators, students and personnel of non-profit organizations who want to discuss evaluation issues.
Contact:
Mobile: 617-733-5979
Email: davidr46@gmail.com
Address: 11 Round About Way, Greenville, SC 29609
Slide Presentation: https://www.slideshare.net/davidr46
Ask A Question Here: https://forms.gle/JuwQiW1gAmGJ3huD7
Image Source: FreeImages
The equity agenda has the potential to shape how we think about and evaluate programs for years to come. In response, program evaluators are asking new questions, developing novel techniques, and adopting new measures of success that align with equity principles. Program evaluation is a set of processes used to assess the effectiveness of programs or interventions in achieving their intended outcomes. Program evaluation can help us understand what is working and what isn’t working so that we can make informed decisions about whether to continue or end the program or take other actions. Programs often struggle with these questions: Are we reaching the people who need our services? Are they using them? Are they seeing positive impacts as a result? And if not, why not?
Equity is the idea that all people deserve to be treated fairly, with dignity and respect, regardless of their differences (e.g., income, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, language, religion, immigration status, disability status, etc.). In the context of program evaluation, equity is the extent to which a program is meeting the needs of the people it intends to serve or the degree to which a program is having positive impacts on its intended beneficiaries. Equity is a core principle developed for the field of evaluation by the W.E.B. Du Bois Institute for Social Research at Harvard University and the Evaluation & the Public Program (EPP) at the University of Washington. Equity is a broader framework for evaluating programs that goes beyond questions of impact and effectiveness to also include issues of fairness, inclusivity, and participation.
Programs that are truly successful expand beyond their initial reach and impact. For this to happen, we need to know who is being left out, why, and what we can do about it. Program evaluation can help answer these questions. But to do so, we must ensure that the evaluation is designed with equity principles in mind. Equity-oriented program evaluations include methods that enable us to identify and understand who is being left out and why, and also provide information on how to better include those people. A common problem in program evaluation is that people who are not served by a program are less likely to participate in the evaluation. This means that their perspective and experiences go missing from the evaluation, resulting in an incomplete and potentially biased picture of the program. There is growing recognition that many of the traditional methods used in program evaluation create significant barriers for people who are left out by the process. Equity-oriented program evaluation methods are designed to reduce or remove these barriers.
- In whose name are we doing this work? Whose experiences and perspectives are shaping our ideas, discussions, and decisions? Whose needs and experiences are we trying to address? - For whom is this work missing? Who is not being reached by the program? Who is not participating in the evaluation? Why are they missing? - What are the barriers that prevent people from participating? Are there ways to remove the barriers to participation?
- Focus groups with people who are not participating in the program evaluation: One method for addressing the first question above is to invite people who are not participating in the program evaluation to participate in a focus group discussion. This provides an opportunity to learn more about their experiences and perspectives. People who have not been participating in the evaluation are often those who are being left out. - Mixed methods approaches: Mixed methods approaches combine quantitative and qualitative methods, such as surveys and interviews, to provide a more complete and holistic understanding of program impacts and outcomes. - Engagement-oriented evaluation approaches: Engagement-oriented evaluation approaches involve meaningful participation from program participants in designing, conducting, and analyzing the evaluation. Through these approaches, people who are served by the program play a greater role in the evaluation, creating a more comprehensive and complete picture of the program’s impacts and outcomes. - Creative and participatory methods: Creative approaches to program evaluation expand the ways in which the evaluation is done, including the use of art, poetry, and other creative methods. Participatory methods involve participants in designing and conducting the evaluation. Both creative and participatory methods are intended to broaden the reach of the evaluation by making it more accessible and open to a broader range of people and perspectives.
Programs are most effective when they reach a broad range of people and address their needs and experiences. Equity-oriented program evaluation can help us identify who is being left out and why, and suggest ways to more fully include these people. As the field of program evaluation evolves, we are seeing increasing interest in equity-oriented evaluation approaches. This is welcome and necessary because the equity agenda has the potential to shape how we think about and evaluate programs for years to come. In response, program evaluators are asking new questions, developing novel techniques, and adopting new measures of success that align with equity principles.
The question has been asked before - Are evaluation findings and recommendations ever used by program planners and implementers? During my life as an evaluator, I have had a number of times when findings and recommendations were used by staff and leaders of the programs with whom I worked. Here are three examples, and some reflections on plausible reasons they were used.
Example 1 of Evaluation Use
Most recent example of evaluation use involves an evaluation of a youth development project in Massachusetts involving a Boys & Girls Clubs program to provide an intervention for youth who are at risk for delinquency and school behavior problems. This program was developed in a rural setting where there were previously no resources for youth in two target communities of about 30,000 residents. Police, juvenile court, school principals, and parents in a community needs assessment provided ample support for the need for a strengths-based youth development program. Steering committee members included police, court, local united way funder, bank executive, public housing coordinator, and school principal. Evaluation collected and reported on youth functional behavior (using standardized behavioral assessment) at home, school, community, social-emotional, self-injury, cognitive functioning. Also collected and reported on youth surveys on participation and satisfaction variables.
Reflection on Reasons for Use
Example 2 of Evaluation Use
Going back to the 1990s the Head Start Bureau in Administration for Children and Families invested in a demonstration project to help transition Head Start children into the first three grades of public school: Head Start Public School Transition Demonstration Study. In all 31 sites were funded from 30 states. Each site had local evaluator and outside firm coordinated common evaluation measures across all sites. There were common measures and local measures (which varied depending on site interests and capacity). My site was most interested in incorporating Family Service Coordinators into the public school system. Data was collected on the activities of the FSC and school climate factors, including student literacy, numeracy, and social functioning.
Reflection on Reason for Use
Example 3 of Evaluation Use
Evaluators do all kinds of things in the course of evaluating programs. Another example comes from evaluation of work with a community HIV/AIDS prevention program that is located in an urban city in the middle of Massachusetts – Worcester has about 180,000 people. The program serves about 1,500 individuals per year. They initiated a new project based on a yearlong needs assessment to provide prevention and referral to treatment for women of color who were at risk for HIV/AIDS and interpersonal violence. They formed a collaborative of health clinic representatives, shelter staff, domestic violence groups, and Red Cross trainers to build the program. During the formative stages, they needed to develop a standardized way to assess women who were at risk of HIV/AIDS and interpersonal violence. There were no existing standardized screening tools available at the time. The evaluators collected screening tools from each of the partners and developed a screening tool with the partners’ full participation and agreement, pilot-tested the screening tool.
Reflection on Reason for Use
Thursday, March 4, 2010
Boys & Girls Club gets grant
DUDLEY - The Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts has awarded a $175,455 grant to the Boys & Girls Club of Webster-Dudley. This grant will continue the foundation's funding through 2010 for Choices, a comprehensive program to direct at-risk young people toward positive alternatives.
"Choices serves teens by offering a wide variety of programs to teach them how to avoid negative influences and develop healthy habits in their lives. They attend life skills and Internet safety classes, participate in athletics, and receive homework help," said Tony Poti, executive director of the Boys & Girls Club of Webster-Dudley. "We are focused on helping these children develop decision-making and leadership skills, using the most effective and proven programs that have been developed by the Boys & Girls Club of America."
Dr. David S. Robinson, president of DSRobinson & Associates, has been working with the Choices program to evaluate its success and reported very positive results at the grant announcement. "I have studied the key indicators collected on youth who participate in the Choices program, I have come to agree with the Public/Private Ventures research conclusion about the high quality and benefits of Boys and Girls Clubs programs. The youth who participate in Choices programs at the Boys and Girls Clubs of Webster-Dudley show significant gains in social skills, improved attitudes toward school, and positive relationships with peers and adults. All of the Choices participants take advantage of homework help and three out of four teens report that they are doing better in school since involvement in the program," he said.
| hide details 9:36 AM (12 minutes ago) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||