|
Session Title: Developing Approaches That Place a Positive Value and Reduce Resistance to the Evaluation Process
|
|
Panel Session 468 to be held in Balboa C on Thursday, Nov 3, 4:30 PM to 6:00 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Non-profit and Foundations Evaluation TIG
and the Internal Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| Stanley Capela, HeartShare Human Services, stan.capela@heartshare.org
|
| Abstract:
As program evaluators, whether external or internal, we are often confronted by resistance to the evaluation process. Very often this resistance leads to a negative outcome on how the evaluation process is manipulated by various factors and ultimately a report that produces findings that have no impact on identifying the program's strengths and challenges. In the end the evaluation results have no impact on improving the quality of services.
This panel will provide several examples on how an evaluator used a variety of techniques that not only reduce the level of resistance but ultimately produces results that provide the organization with the information that will ultimately improve the overall quality of services.
|
|
Breaking Down Mythconceptions & Resistance to Evaluation in Funders & Nonprofits
|
| Charles Gasper, Missouri Foundation for Health, cgasper@mffh.org
|
|
Evaluators who work for and with foundations can face two levels of resistance to evaluation - from the foundation staff as well as the nonprofit. Few funders have dedicated staff for evaluation and those that do spend a significant amount of time breaking down that resistance. The resistance can be either passive or active and can have a disastrous impact on the quality of the evaluation, the value ascribed to the information, and whether the results are used.
Some techniques that will be discussed to address resistance include clarification of reasons for evaluation, language, linkage of evaluation with program planning and design, provision of engaging general education, and other stakeholder outreach.
|
|
|
A Recipe for Adding Value While Reducing Resistance to Program Evaluation
|
| Stanley Capela, HeartShare Human Services, stan.capela@heartshare.org
|
|
An internal evaluator is often confronted with a high level of resistance when conducting program evaluation. Often it is due to the inherent perception among program management that the purpose of program evaluation is nothing more than "I Got You Mentality." In many instances the culture that permeates an organization can be affected by how program evaluation is perceived by senior management.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a recipe that is a continuing though process that was shared during a recent AEA 365 session on resistance to evaluation. The primary focus is to provide techniques on how to change the organizational culture to make program evaluation more conducive to senior management and produce positive results.
| |
|
Values, Deep Culture and Resistance
|
| Molly Engle, Oregon State University, molly.engle@oregonstate.edu
|
|
Stakeholders come to an evaluation bringing with them their values, their biases, and their expectations, all of which form a resistance to the change that could result from the program delivery. Deep culture encompasses all of these constructs. Understanding how resistance can present itself is the first step in overcoming resistance and ensuring buy-in from stakeholders. Resistance to evaluation, like deep culture won't go away--evaluators must work within the structure provided to minimize resistance to evaluation.
| |
|
Meeting Resistance With Transparency: Randomization and Political Pressure in Zambia
|
| Keri Culver, MSI Inc, kericulver@yahoo.com
|
|
In an impact evaluation of social cash transfer programming in remote, rural Zambia, using a randomized controlled trial model, stakeholders voiced customary concerns about the ethics of assigning communities to a control group. An added layer of conflict brought significant political resistance as well: Zambian political divisions (communities, wards, districts, provinces) are overlaid by a system of traditional chiefdoms, led by headmen accustomed to trading influence for public goods. Selecting communities for participation was highly contentious and the value of impact evaluation was brought into question publicly. Our team devised transparent, recorded steps to demonstrate the randomization process, involve stakeholders, show how alternate methods introduced political bias, and provide language for social welfare officers' interactions with constituents. The result was political and ministerial buy-in, and the program is being rolled out to households following successful baseline data collection.
| |