| In a 90 minute Roundtable session, the first
rotation uses the first 45 minutes and the second rotation uses the last 45 minutes.
|
| Roundtable Rotation I:
Big Brother and Local Program Evaluation: Are the Values Aligned? |
|
Roundtable Presentation 210 to be held in Conference Room 1 on Thursday, Nov 3, 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Advocacy and Policy Change TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Craig LeCroy, LeCroy & Milligan Associates Inc, craig.lecroy@asu.edu
|
| Lena Malofeeva, LeCroy & Milligan Associates, lenam@lecroymilligan.com
|
| Darcy McNaughton, LeCroy & Milligan Associates, darcy@lecroymilligan.com
|
| Darlene Lopez, LeCroy & Milligan Associates, darlene@lecroymilligan.com
|
| Kerry Milligan, LeCroy & Milligan Associates, kerry@lecroymilligan.com
|
| DeeDee Avery, LeCroy & Milligan Associates, deed@lecroymilligan.com
|
| Abstract:
This roundtable will address issues concerning how the federal government and large contracted evaluation companies are impacting local program evaluations. Recent grant proposals from the Feds have required "rigorous studies" and often a large evaluation company (e.g. Mathmatica) is hired to oversee all evaluation activities. The intent of the these policy changes appears to be an effort to obtain more rigorous findings. How do such changes impact program evaluation at the local level? Are local evaluators are losing decision making authority and at what cost? Are there conflicting values in how these entities perceive "evaluation" and how local program evaluations perceive their mission? In what way can AEA support efforts at both the National level and efforts of local program evaluators? This roundtable will address all these issues and more.
|
| Roundtable Rotation II:
Quality in Advocacy Evaluation: Values and Rigor |
|
Roundtable Presentation 210 to be held in Conference Room 1 on Thursday, Nov 3, 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Advocacy and Policy Change TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Rhonda Schlangen, Action Impact Evaluation, rschlangen@yahoo.com
|
| Lily Zandniapour, Innovation Network, lzandniapour@innonet.org
|
| Abstract:
This session is designed to facilitate a constructive discussion about rigor in social science evaluation, specifically for advocacy efforts. It will challenge the notion that for a social science evaluation to be rigorous it must use a specific design or methodology. The session will contribute to the broader evaluation field by suggesting realistic, more holistic definitions of rigor that focus on embedding quality research standards and practices in each step of the evaluation process. The roundtable will be framed by an examination of the context around which discussions in the field about rigor are taking place. Using real case advocacy evaluation efforts and focusing on the purpose of evaluation to frame the discussion, the importance of a broader view of rigor is explored. With guiding questions posed by presenters, participants will contribute ideas and experiences about challenges and strategies to reinforce rigor when evaluating advocacy, policy and systems change initiatives.
|