| Session Title: Empowerment Evaluation Training: One Method Isn't Enough (Multiple Perspectives on Building Capacity - Funder, Grantee, and Evaluator) |
| Multipaper Session 885 to be held in Mineral Hall Section G on Saturday, Nov 8, 1:20 PM to 2:50 PM |
| Sponsored by the Collaborative, Participatory & Empowerment Evaluation TIG |
| Chair(s): |
| David Fetterman, Stanford University, davidf@stanford.edu |
| Abstract: This panel provides multiple perspectives concerning building sustainable evaluation infrastructures in nonprofits. The panel begins with the donor's perspective, highlighting the need to build internal sustainable evaluation capacity. It is followed by grantee and evaluator perspectives on the need to build institutionalized evaluation capacity. Specific activities discussed include workshops, technical assistance, peer exchanges, symposia, web-based tools, and certificate programs. A domestic emphasis on these matters is complemented by an international perspective focusing on evaluation training efforts in rural Spain. |
| One Method isn't Enough: Building Sustainable Evaluation Structures in the Nonprofits |
| Charles Gasper, Missouri Foundation for Health, cgasper@mffh.org |
| Recognizing that sustained evaluation promotes healthier organizations and programming, a Missouri health foundation chose to develop a multifactor approach to develop capacity for evaluation with an eye toward engendering sustainable evaluation in the nonprofits it funds. Included in the support are: * Foundation funded workshops and symposia focusing on the use of evaluation for organizational strategic planning, empowering decision making, and integrating evaluation into standard organizational activities * Technical support for internal evaluation by contracted evaluators (one of which will be presenting their formats) * Peer exchanges and symposia for contracted evaluators on techniques to enhance evaluation and the sustainability of internal evaluation * Development of evaluators to support smaller scale evaluations (partnerships with local educational programs with an evaluation emphasis) The Foundation's experience in orchestrating these efforts combined with a frank discussion of the impact of integrating the various supports for evaluation will be shared. |
| Implementing a Multi-Modal Approach to Building Capacity |
| Abbey Small, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, asmall1@slu.edu |
| Amy Sorg, Saint Louis University School of Public Health, asorg@slu.edu |
| In 2004, a Missouri health foundation committed significant funding to establish a nine-year, multi-site initiative to reduce tobacco use in Missouri. As the external evaluators for this initiative, one of our primary goals has been to increase the evaluation capacity of the initiative grantees. For the past three years, we have implemented a multi-modal approach to achieve this goal. We have found this to be a more effective method of reaching people with diverse backgrounds as compared with a single approach. Our capacity building activities include the development and implementation of an annual three day training institute, creation of an interactive website and message board, and ongoing individualized technical assistance. For this panel, we will outline the details of our approach and how our methods may be applied by other evaluators with similar goals. In addition, we will discuss the benefits and challenges of each component and the overall integration of these methods. |
| Empowerment Evaluation and the Arkansas Evaluation Center: Building Capacity from Workshops and Certificate Programs to the Creation of Local Evaluation Groups |
| David Fetterman, Stanford University, davidf@stanford.edu |
| Linda Delaney, LFD Consulting LLC, info@lindafdelaney.com |
| The Arkansas Evaluation Center resulted from tobacco prevention work in Arkansas. In the process of collecting tobacco prevention data, grantees and evaluator determined that there was need to build evaluation capacity across the State in various areas (beyond tobacco prevention). A bill was submitted, passed the House and Senate and was signed by the Governor of Arkansas. Empowerment evaluation is a guiding principle and approach at the Center. The Center is housed in the School of Education at the University of Arkansas Pine Bluff. It is responsible for building evaluation capacity throughout the State in the form of: lectures, guest speakers, workshops, certificate programs, and conferences. In addition the Center and the certificate program link with the local evaluation group to facilitate networking, create a natural transition from evaluation training to employment, and enhance socialization into the field. |
| IGTO: A Web-Based Technology to Build Capacity |
| Beverly Tremain, Public Health Consulting LLC, btremain@publichealthconsulting.net |
| Matthew Chinman, RAND Corporation, chinman@rand.org |
| Abraham Wandersman, University of South Carolina, wandersman@sc.edu |
| Pamela Imm, LRADAC, pimm@lradac.org |
| In this presentation, developers will discuss planning, implementation, and evaluation of the interactive Getting to Outcomes (iGTO) tool designed for community coalitions. A research project was the backdrop against a State Planning Grant - State Initiative Grant (SPF SIG) for Missouri and Tennessee coalitions. iGTO uses web-based technology to automate much of the work involved in successfully answering the 10 accountability questions. The tool was used by two states and over 48 coalitions in the last 2 years. Eventually, one state chose to adopt the GTO model and iGTO tool and one state did not. The presentation team will describe the function of iGTO and its uses for prevention work in documenting outcomes. A major focus of the presentation will be how the system, coalition, and individual level factors studied during the year intertwined to potentially influence adoption in the two states. |
| A Case Study of How Tools, Training and Intensive Technical Assistance Improved Adoption of an Innovation |
| Marilyn Ray, Finger Lakes Law and Social Policy Center Inc, mlr17@cornell.edu |
| Gordon Hannah, Finger Lakes Law and Social Policy Center Inc, gordonjhannah@gmail.com |
| Abraham Wandersman, University of South Carolina, wandersman@sc.edu |
| Research has found that training and manuals are generally insufficient to bring about long-term use of an innovation. Based on such findings, Getting To OutcomesTM (GTOTM) created a system model that includes: developing tools; providing training; and a period of intensive technical assistance (TA) and a process for quality improvement/quality assurance. We tested this model in New York after the state enacted legislation requiring all preventive social services to include outcome based provisions. This paper will discuss a project that employed the GTO System Model to assist nine county social service agencies in New York plan, implement, evaluate, and contract for preventive programs that would meet the terms of the new statute. The project utilized an Empowerment Evaluation approach to facilitate collaboration between county departments and their contracting partners to achieve outcomes and implement new evaluation policies. |
| Empowering People, Empowering Organizations: Some Keys to Make a Difference in Empowerment Evaluations |
| José María Díaz Puente, University of Politics Madrid, jm.diazpuente@upm.es |
| From the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (Technical University of Madrid), the Research Group on Sustainable Planning and Management of Rural/Local Development has been conducting several evaluations in rural and urban settings of Spain, Ireland and some Latin American countries such as Mexico, Ecuador and Peru. The goal of this paper is to share the experience of applying empowerment evaluation in these contexts to train people to conduct their own evaluations, and facilitate their empowerment and the empowerment of the organizations in which they are involved. In order to achieve this empowerment, some conclusions are presented concerning the importance of understanding human nature and behavior, human relationships with any organization, and the important implications of taking into account cultural differences (e.g. Latin vs. Anglo-Saxon culture) when applying participatory approaches and tools. |