What evaluation criteria are appropriate to assess the relevance and efficacy of rights‐based initiatives? In this chapter, the author argues that evaluations of rights‐based programs must themselves espouse human rights principles, and methodological decisions must be assessed against these principles. The design and implementation of the evaluation must thereby promote the dignity, liberty, and equality for and of participants. Against these criteria, top‐down evaluation approaches are often inappropriate or insufficient for the evaluation of rights‐based programs. The chapter discusses how many evaluations use top‐down mechanisms, and then—through critical self‐reflection in case studies—assesses how three evaluations either did or could have benefited from infusing rights‐based principles within design and implementation.
{"title":"Humanizing human rights evaluation: Integrating human rights principles to maintain methodological rigor, axiological commitments, and epistemic justice","authors":"Giovanni P. Dazzo","doi":"10.1002/ev.20528","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20528","url":null,"abstract":"What evaluation criteria are appropriate to assess the relevance and efficacy of rights‐based initiatives? In this chapter, the author argues that evaluations of rights‐based programs must themselves espouse human rights principles, and methodological decisions must be assessed against these principles. The design and implementation of the evaluation must thereby promote the dignity, liberty, and equality for and of participants. Against these criteria, top‐down evaluation approaches are often inappropriate or insufficient for the evaluation of rights‐based programs. The chapter discusses how many evaluations use top‐down mechanisms, and then—through critical self‐reflection in case studies—assesses how three evaluations either did or could have benefited from infusing rights‐based principles within design and implementation.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42230415","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Issues of power are not new to program evaluation. What is new is a consideration of how programming uses insights into incentives that shape and adapt implementation. How should one evaluate in a way that explicitly assesses the ways in which a program considers power? One of the innovative topics deriving from the democracy and governance space is the approach of thinking and working politically (TWP) which is seeing increased use in development programming. TWP suggests different mental models and practical approaches to achieving development objectives in ways that are more contextually grounded and informed by power dynamics. This article describes several of the core challenges to evaluation of TWP and also a rubric of considerations for more effective evaluation practices in this emerging field.
{"title":"Evaluating programming that thinks and works politically: Challenges and emerging practice","authors":"D. Jacobstein, S. Swift","doi":"10.1002/ev.20527","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20527","url":null,"abstract":"Issues of power are not new to program evaluation. What is new is a consideration of how programming uses insights into incentives that shape and adapt implementation. How should one evaluate in a way that explicitly assesses the ways in which a program considers power? One of the innovative topics deriving from the democracy and governance space is the approach of thinking and working politically (TWP) which is seeing increased use in development programming. TWP suggests different mental models and practical approaches to achieving development objectives in ways that are more contextually grounded and informed by power dynamics. This article describes several of the core challenges to evaluation of TWP and also a rubric of considerations for more effective evaluation practices in this emerging field.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47137422","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) evaluation practice faces diverse challenges, not only because of the complexity of intervention designs and implementation but also due to the complexity of the fragile contexts in which DRG evaluation is generally applied. Evaluating in fragile contexts demands responsiveness to the complexity and provides challenges to define what capacities and competencies a DRG evaluator should have. In 2019, the International Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation (IOCE) was funded to design a set of tools to develop individual and institutional DRG evaluation capacities in an online training course and an associated toolkit. These materials aim to advocate for more DRG evaluation for a stronger democracy, advancing human rights, and increased governance. Using a transformative lens, this chapter critically reviews the challenges and constraints faced while developing DRG evaluators’ capacities. This critical analysis of complexity with a transformative lens adds insights into the practice of evaluation in the pursuit of human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice.
{"title":"Challenging democracy, human rights, and governance evaluation capacity development through a transformative lens","authors":"C. Olavarría, D. Mertens","doi":"10.1002/ev.20530","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20530","url":null,"abstract":"Democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) evaluation practice faces diverse challenges, not only because of the complexity of intervention designs and implementation but also due to the complexity of the fragile contexts in which DRG evaluation is generally applied. Evaluating in fragile contexts demands responsiveness to the complexity and provides challenges to define what capacities and competencies a DRG evaluator should have. In 2019, the International Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation (IOCE) was funded to design a set of tools to develop individual and institutional DRG evaluation capacities in an online training course and an associated toolkit. These materials aim to advocate for more DRG evaluation for a stronger democracy, advancing human rights, and increased governance. Using a transformative lens, this chapter critically reviews the challenges and constraints faced while developing DRG evaluators’ capacities. This critical analysis of complexity with a transformative lens adds insights into the practice of evaluation in the pursuit of human rights and social, economic, and environmental justice.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42851036","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter introduces the evaluative perspective of a funder – the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – that advances a portfolio of highly diverse and multifaceted democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) projects. The chapter explores the underlying political character of democracy assistance work – which is therefore viewed by some as partisan – and second, the variable dynamic forces intrinsic to complex operating contexts, both of which affect how the NED is able to both standardize and provide flexibility in grantee evaluation. This analysis draws attention to the challenges and opportunities inherent to grantmakers operating on a global scale as well as structuring adaptable evaluation methodologies commensurate with that scale of work yet relevant to grantees.
{"title":"Matching program complexity with institutional funding realities in democracy, human rights, and governance program evaluation","authors":"Rebekah Usatin, Georges A. Fauriol","doi":"10.1002/ev.20529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20529","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter introduces the evaluative perspective of a funder – the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) – that advances a portfolio of highly diverse and multifaceted democracy, human rights, and governance (DRG) projects. The chapter explores the underlying political character of democracy assistance work – which is therefore viewed by some as partisan – and second, the variable dynamic forces intrinsic to complex operating contexts, both of which affect how the NED is able to both standardize and provide flexibility in grantee evaluation. This analysis draws attention to the challenges and opportunities inherent to grantmakers operating on a global scale as well as structuring adaptable evaluation methodologies commensurate with that scale of work yet relevant to grantees.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48358675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jane Whynot, Sarah E. Heath, Larissa Silver, Charlie‐Rae Robin, Mathewson Kent
This article applies a reflective account of experiences of youth, organizational personnel, and evaluators in an evaluation of the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa's transition to a Housing First for Youth model. A prominent aspect of this evaluation was the extended focus on, to and with LGBTQ2S+ youth. Our collective account positions co‐creation along a continuum involving these youth as data sources, as consultants, co‐evaluators, and as co‐leaders. Authors use these three continuum points to present related theory, application in our project context, the intersectional implications, and lessons learned to highlight practical and theoretical implications for LGBTQ2S+ evaluation. We conclude our contribution to this special issue by discussing implications and elements that need to be considered for LGBTQ2S+ evaluation.
{"title":"At the intersection of co‐creation: Exploring LGBTQ2S evaluation with youth","authors":"Jane Whynot, Sarah E. Heath, Larissa Silver, Charlie‐Rae Robin, Mathewson Kent","doi":"10.1002/ev.20510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20510","url":null,"abstract":"This article applies a reflective account of experiences of youth, organizational personnel, and evaluators in an evaluation of the Youth Services Bureau of Ottawa's transition to a Housing First for Youth model. A prominent aspect of this evaluation was the extended focus on, to and with LGBTQ2S+ youth. Our collective account positions co‐creation along a continuum involving these youth as data sources, as consultants, co‐evaluators, and as co‐leaders. Authors use these three continuum points to present related theory, application in our project context, the intersectional implications, and lessons learned to highlight practical and theoretical implications for LGBTQ2S+ evaluation. We conclude our contribution to this special issue by discussing implications and elements that need to be considered for LGBTQ2S+ evaluation.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47790148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sexualized drug use, also known as Party and Play (PnP, chemsex) is a phenomenon that is increasingly pervasive among 2SGBTQ+ communities in Canada and has been epidemiologically linked to increased risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted and blood‐borne illnesses (STBBI). The phenomenon is highly stigmatized even within 2SGBTQ+ communities, perpetuating discrimination against individuals who PnP. Consequently, such individuals often remain invisible to formal care systems. Even as public health efforts seek to reduce the harms associated with PnP, narrowly epidemiological understandings of the phenomenon without understanding it from the perspectives of those with living experience of it, and—without attention to how historical, socio‐structural, and cultural factors shape the phenomenon—contribute to the stigmatization, disempowerment, and marginalization of people who PnP from healthcare access. In this chapter, we describe how an evaluation‐driven program design process grounded in the transformative evaluation paradigm and the principles of LGBTQ+ evaluation supported a paradigm shift for one public health agency in how they re‐conceptualized a more empowering approach for engaging people who PnP in dignified, meaningful care.
{"title":"Empowering the search for pleasure, health and well‐being outside heteronormative definitions: The role of evaluation in shaping structurally sensitive programming for 2SGBTQ+ men who Party and Play in Ontario","authors":"Yasser Ismail, D. Griffiths, Jordan Bond-Gorr","doi":"10.1002/ev.20511","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20511","url":null,"abstract":"Sexualized drug use, also known as Party and Play (PnP, chemsex) is a phenomenon that is increasingly pervasive among 2SGBTQ+ communities in Canada and has been epidemiologically linked to increased risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted and blood‐borne illnesses (STBBI). The phenomenon is highly stigmatized even within 2SGBTQ+ communities, perpetuating discrimination against individuals who PnP. Consequently, such individuals often remain invisible to formal care systems. Even as public health efforts seek to reduce the harms associated with PnP, narrowly epidemiological understandings of the phenomenon without understanding it from the perspectives of those with living experience of it, and—without attention to how historical, socio‐structural, and cultural factors shape the phenomenon—contribute to the stigmatization, disempowerment, and marginalization of people who PnP from healthcare access. In this chapter, we describe how an evaluation‐driven program design process grounded in the transformative evaluation paradigm and the principles of LGBTQ+ evaluation supported a paradigm shift for one public health agency in how they re‐conceptualized a more empowering approach for engaging people who PnP in dignified, meaningful care.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42588779","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This chapter explores considerations for evaluators who work in countries and regions where LGBTQ+ acceptance is low and LGBTQ+ stigma, discrimination, and violence are pervasive. We highlight the ways in which LGBTQ+ criminalization and repressive legal restrictions impact on the task of evaluating LGBTQ+ advocacy and service provision. Drawing on our experience of evaluating a human rights advocacy initiative to reduce stigma, discrimination, and violence as barriers to access to HIV care in Africa and the Caribbean, we outline principles of practice that evaluators might observe and strategies they might draw on to support LGBTQ+ communities in advancing human rights causes and improving the availability of affirming services in hostile settings.
{"title":"LGBTQ+ human rights evaluation in the global South: Lessons from evaluating Project ACT","authors":"R. Miller, Johnny Tohme","doi":"10.1002/ev.20517","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20517","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter explores considerations for evaluators who work in countries and regions where LGBTQ+ acceptance is low and LGBTQ+ stigma, discrimination, and violence are pervasive. We highlight the ways in which LGBTQ+ criminalization and repressive legal restrictions impact on the task of evaluating LGBTQ+ advocacy and service provision. Drawing on our experience of evaluating a human rights advocacy initiative to reduce stigma, discrimination, and violence as barriers to access to HIV care in Africa and the Caribbean, we outline principles of practice that evaluators might observe and strategies they might draw on to support LGBTQ+ communities in advancing human rights causes and improving the availability of affirming services in hostile settings.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47684661","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The long‐term sustainability and stability of the evaluation profession is dependent on superior, evaluation‐specific education programs designed to help increase the quality, numbers, visibility, and collective impact of evaluation theory and practice in society. Recent studies illustrate the breadth of colleges and universities in the United States that are offering certificates, master's degrees, and doctoral degrees with a specialization in evaluation. Less attention has been paid, however, to the ways higher education institutions prepare would‐be evaluators to recognize the limits of their expertise and to work with individuals and communities that may not share their expertise or background. The importance of this awareness is compounded by the ethical challenges associated with facilitating evaluative work with diverse, historically marginalized groups such as LGBTQ+ communities, which may have their own fraught histories with evaluation. This chapter will discuss LGBTQ+ perspectives that educators should include in their evaluation curricula to help inform high‐quality, ethical practice, and conclude with a dialogue between the authors about the process of writing the chapter, their concerns, and their hopes for the future.
{"title":"Evaluator education through an LGBTQ+ lens: Interrogating power and privilege in the classroom","authors":"M. Wright, J. LaVelle","doi":"10.1002/ev.20512","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20512","url":null,"abstract":"The long‐term sustainability and stability of the evaluation profession is dependent on superior, evaluation‐specific education programs designed to help increase the quality, numbers, visibility, and collective impact of evaluation theory and practice in society. Recent studies illustrate the breadth of colleges and universities in the United States that are offering certificates, master's degrees, and doctoral degrees with a specialization in evaluation. Less attention has been paid, however, to the ways higher education institutions prepare would‐be evaluators to recognize the limits of their expertise and to work with individuals and communities that may not share their expertise or background. The importance of this awareness is compounded by the ethical challenges associated with facilitating evaluative work with diverse, historically marginalized groups such as LGBTQ+ communities, which may have their own fraught histories with evaluation. This chapter will discuss LGBTQ+ perspectives that educators should include in their evaluation curricula to help inform high‐quality, ethical practice, and conclude with a dialogue between the authors about the process of writing the chapter, their concerns, and their hopes for the future.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48427587","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
D. Felt, Esrea Pérez-Bill, Eric Barela, Nicole L. Cundiff, Radaya Ellis, L. Johnson, Nicholas Metcalf, Travis R. Moore, Ashley Philliber, J. Poirier, Sarah Daniel Rasher, Cindy Rizzo, Erik Elías Glenn, G. Phillips
We close this issue of New Directions for Evaluation by looking towards the future. In this chapter, the perspectives of 10 LGBTQ+ Evaluators whose voices and insights were not otherwise featured in this issue provide their critical insights on what LGBTQ+ Evaluation means to them, what it looks like in practice, and where they hope to see it grow in the future, including how the work of this issue of New Directions for Evaluation can be expanded and built upon. In closing the issue on a critical, futures‐oriented note, we reaffirm our assertion that this is neither the first, nor the final word on LGBTQ+ Evaluation, and we invite all evaluators to join in the process of articulating and exploring what LGBTQ+ Evaluation is, and can be.
{"title":"Imagining the future of LGBTQ+ evaluation: New(er) directions and what comes next","authors":"D. Felt, Esrea Pérez-Bill, Eric Barela, Nicole L. Cundiff, Radaya Ellis, L. Johnson, Nicholas Metcalf, Travis R. Moore, Ashley Philliber, J. Poirier, Sarah Daniel Rasher, Cindy Rizzo, Erik Elías Glenn, G. Phillips","doi":"10.1002/ev.20513","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20513","url":null,"abstract":"We close this issue of New Directions for Evaluation by looking towards the future. In this chapter, the perspectives of 10 LGBTQ+ Evaluators whose voices and insights were not otherwise featured in this issue provide their critical insights on what LGBTQ+ Evaluation means to them, what it looks like in practice, and where they hope to see it grow in the future, including how the work of this issue of New Directions for Evaluation can be expanded and built upon. In closing the issue on a critical, futures‐oriented note, we reaffirm our assertion that this is neither the first, nor the final word on LGBTQ+ Evaluation, and we invite all evaluators to join in the process of articulating and exploring what LGBTQ+ Evaluation is, and can be.","PeriodicalId":35250,"journal":{"name":"New Directions for Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47540211","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：