Formative Evaluation as Community Development Daniela Stehlik Alcoa Research Centre for Stronger...
-
Upload
godwin-allison -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Formative Evaluation as Community Development Daniela Stehlik Alcoa Research Centre for Stronger...
Formative Evaluation as Community Development
Daniela StehlikDaniela StehlikAlcoa Research Centre for Stronger CommunitiesAlcoa Research Centre for Stronger Communities
Curtin University of TechnologyCurtin University of Technology
Lesley ChenowethLesley ChenowethSchool of Social Work & Applied Human SciencesSchool of Social Work & Applied Human Sciences
The University of QueenslandThe University of Queensland
Outline of presentation
• Key Learnings• Program Context• Formative Evaluation Philosophy• Evaluation Dimensions• Methods adopted • Strengths & Challenges
Key Learnings -Building Communities through
Evaluation
• Spatial communities• Practice communities• Human service communities
Program Context• Rural/remote• People with disabilities and their
families• Government staffed and funded• Pilots• Quest for better service delivery
models
Formative Evaluation Philosophy Framework
• Social Justice• Participatory• Action research principles• Ethical practice
Formative Evaluation Philosophy Framework - how?• Evaluation as staff development• Through Stakeholder Reference
Group• Involved in professional
development activities• Confidentiality/anonymity
Evaluation dimensions
• Complexities• Multi-level interventions• Cultural change agenda• Searching for ‘best practice’• Pressure to get evidence ‘out’• Rural/remote• Spectrum of disability service
availability
What were the indicators used?
• From Program goals– At the level of …
• Government Policy• Dept’l Program
management• Field Practice• People with a
disability and their families
• Community capacity building
What were the indicators used?
• From Program goals– At the level of …
• Government Policy (4)• Dept’l Program
management (3)• Field Practice (6)• People with a disability
and their families (5)• Community capacity
building (7)
22 levels ….
Methods adopted ….
• Focus groups• Questionnaires• Indepth interviews• Measurement of social relationships• Participant observation• Client records analysis• Practioner as researcher
Evaluation dimensions
• Complexities• Multi-level interventionsMulti-level interventions• Cultural change agenda• Searching for ‘best practice’• Pressure to get evidence ‘out’• Rural/remote• Spectrum of disability service availability
Multi-level Interventions
Community
FamiliesIndividuals
Program addressed each level and the interactions between
Multi-level Interventions
Community
FamiliesIndividuals
Program addressed each level and the interactions between
Multi-level Interventions
Community
FamiliesIndividuals
Program addressed each level and the interactions between
Multi-level Interventions
Community
FamiliesIndividuals
Program addressed each level and the interactions between
Multi-level Interventions
Community
FamiliesIndividuals
Program addressed each level and the interactions between
Key Learnings -Building Communities through
Evaluation• Spatial communities
– Worker/families/ngos/govt etc.
• Practice communitiesPractice communities– Workers/ngos/govt/academeWorkers/ngos/govt/academe
• Human service communities– govt./ngos/academe
New knowledge informs training
of new practitioners
New practitionersimplement new
knowledge
Researcher-practitionersexchange >>
new knowledge
CD in practice
• The role of the practitioner• Capacity building doesn’t just
‘happen’• Facilitation & Intervention are
requiredBuilding a 21st century model of human service practice
Strengths of Evaluation Approach
• Accommodated complexity• Provided both quantifiable and
illustrative evidence• Gave value beyond the evaluation
per se• Enabled participation including
people with a disability
Strengths cont.
• Built practitioner confidence • Enhanced program profile within
dept.• Worked in longitudinal and short term
situations • Enabled timely feedback of findings • Aided writing of report
Challenges
• Assumed high level evaluator knowledge of program, practice & issues
• Political sensitivity• Distance across sites limited
participant observation • Demand for face to face contact • Problematic access to client databases
& records