Download
1 / 13
130 likes | 144 Views
Learn about the guiding principles for evaluators and the importance of including stakeholders in the evaluation process. Discover how power differentials and expediency can lead to unfair evaluations and how other stakeholders deserve a voice. Explore the factors that determine whether the grantee calls the shots in the evaluation process, and the importance of planning for input, especially for community grantees. Gain insights from a long-standing community collaborative and how it demonstrated the successful integration of stakeholder perspectives. Finally, find out how to build an infrastructure of trust to achieve quality and engagement in evaluation.
E N D
Including Grantee Voices:The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Laura C. Leviton, Ph.D. Senior Adviser for Evaluation March 7, 2014
Guiding Principles for Evaluators • D. Respect for People #5: Where feasible… foster social equity in evaluation • E. Responsibilities for the General and Public Welfare #1: When planning and reporting evaluations, include relevant perspectives and interests of the full range of stakeholders #3: Activelydisseminate information to stakeholders as resources allow #4: Maintain a balance between client needs and other needs. #5: Go beyond analysis of particular stakeholder interests and consider the welfare of society as a whole www.eval.org/
The Ugly… An Example • Power differential + Expediency • = Unfair evaluation
Other Stakeholders May Deserve a Voice Available at RWJF.org / Publications / Evaluation tools
Does the Grantee Call the Shots? • Depends on the purpose of the evaluation: • Accountability • Learning • Program Improvement • Capacity of the grantee
Planning for Input • Who speaks for the grantee? • Especially community grantees! • Don’t expect all sweetness and light… • This is evaluation, after all!
An Ugly Duckling Anger is to be expected, When communities are neglected. But that’s not the end of the story…
Ten Years Later: A long-standing community collaborative and a helpful evaluation
“Infrastructure of Trust” “Community-based participatory research is a "collaborative approach to research that equitably involves all partners in the research process and recognizes the unique strengths that each brings. CBPR begins with a research topic of importance to the community, has the aim of combining knowledge with action and achieving social change to improve health outcomes and eliminate health disparities." WK Kellogg Foundation Community Health Scholars Program http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/commbas.html#Principles
“Infrastructure of Trust” • RWJF national program • Linking community interventions to asthma care • Evaluation engaged these collaboratives • Quality of collaborative was associated with fewer asthma episodes
But Can It Be Done at Scale? Yes. Example: Salud America! • The RWJF Research Network to Prevent Latino Childhood Obesity • Developed priorities for study • Delphi process of 318 community leaders, researchers and health groups • Network is now > 2,000 people.
Summary • The Good: Knowing how to engage stakeholders • The Bad: Philanthropy just does not do it much • The Ugly: Not caring.
Getting to Good: • Expect messy process • Stick with it • Build infrastructure of trust • Balance quality and engagement
