| 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:
Fibs, Funders, Power and Politics: The Dilemma of Unflattering Evaluation Results |
|
Roundtable Presentation 412 to be held in Conference Room 12 on Thursday, Nov 3, 2:50 PM to 4:20 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Non-profit and Foundations Evaluation TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Kelly Firesheets, The Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, kfiresheets@healthfoundation.org
|
| Deborah Cohen, Community Mental Health Center Inc, debbie.cohen@cmhcinc.org
|
| Abstract:
When it comes to program evaluation, the data don't always go your way. In this roundtable discussion, two Directors of Evaluation - one in a community mental health center and one in a regional foundation - will share their experiences with reporting and using "unflattering" evaluation results. Together, the two will make suggestions about how to discuss evaluation results with funders, clients, Board Members, and other stakeholders when those results don't meet their expectations. Roundtable participants will then discuss their own experiences with unflattering data, the dilemmas that arise in using and reporting unexpected evaluation results, and possible solutions to those dilemmas. Participants will leave the session with new ideas about how to use unexpected outcomes to strengthen their evaluation work.
|
| Roundtable Rotation II:
Evaluating Program Quality in Nonprofits and Foundations: Systemic Interactions Between Program Practices, Organizational Values and Behaviors, and Social Impact |
|
Roundtable Presentation 412 to be held in Conference Room 12 on Thursday, Nov 3, 2:50 PM to 4:20 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Non-profit and Foundations Evaluation TIG
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Ritu Shroff, Independent Consultant, ritushroff2003@yahoo.co.uk
|
| Martin Reynolds, Open University, m.d.reynolds@open.ac.uk
|
| Abstract:
Based on experience with nonprofit organizations in Africa and Asia, we are developing a systemic framework for evaluating program quality that is comprised of three prongs—program practices, organizational behavior and ultimate impact. The first prong describes those program practices (interactions between program staff and partners and communities with whom they work) that are seen in quality programs. This framework recognizes that such practices are nested within the environment where implementing staff operate. Thus, we also describe agency-wide behaviors, values, and attitudes necessary to create incentives under which quality programming becomes the norm. Finally, an essential reason to think about program quality is based on the assumption of correlation between program quality and impact. If staff that understand program quality exhibit certain program practices, do those practices result in greater or deeper social impact? This framework describes likely effects of these practices that are conducive to positive impact in social change/development interventions.
|