GOOD

More on Evaluation for Learning

This post is a response to "How Might We Celebrate Learning through Evaluation?" Learn more about the conversation here. I...




This post is a response to "How Might We Celebrate Learning through Evaluation?" Learn more about the conversation here.

I appreciated Sally's post on the topic of active learning and the questions she has posed are similar ones we challenge ourselves with at the Packard Foundation. The comments of Sonal Shah (I wasn't there at SoCap, but Beth Kanter was) resonate as well with our own work and approach to balancing the rigor of evaluation along with simultaneous commitment to continuous improvement.

At the Packard Foundation our commitment to effectiveness directly plays out in our evaluation and learning culture and practices. Our approach to evaluation is guided by three main principles:
    \n
  1. Success depends on a willingness to solicit feedback and take corrective action when necessary
  2. \n
  3. Improvement should be continuous, and we should learn from our mistakes
  4. \n
  5. Evaluation should be conducted in partnership with those who are doing the work in order to maximize learning and minimize the burden on grantees
  6. \n
    \n

Through these principles we acknowledge that no effort can be successful without feedback on a continuous basis and without good data. This has to be done in the spirit of improvement and collaboration and with staff and grantees being allowed to make mistakes, to go in a wrong direction, learn from previous work, and take corrective action. It has to be done with the acknowledgment that it is the grantees that are doing the work and that the grantees have to be involved in that conversation. As a Foundation, we need to be aware that the burden of evaluation can be large and that we work to minimize the burden and maximize the value of evaluation for our grantees.

Over the past four years we have been shifting from evaluation for proof or accountability ("Did the program work?") to evaluation for program improvement ("What did we learn that can help us make the program better?"). The latter reflects an approach we refer to as "real-time" evaluation. For us, real-time means balancing monitoring and evaluation to effectively support learning and continuous improvement as our grant-making strategies are implemented. In practice, this extends further than evaluation, and represents our overall approach to an appropriate monitoring, evaluation, and learning system for each programmatic area. Real-time monitoring and evaluation are integrated to regularly facilitate opportunities for learning to occur and bring timely evaluation data-in accessible formats-to the table for reflection and use in decision making. Rather than focus just on evaluation, we have been encouraging a culture that "thinks evaluatively" throughout the grant-making lifecycle of planning, implementation, monitoring, assessment, and course-correction.

We do not have a one-size-fits-all approach to monitoring and evaluation. Rather, we ask our program staff to consider the following factors when they are formulating their monitoring, evaluation, and learning agendas: What questions do we seek to answer? Who is the audience for this information? What level of rigor do they require to be convinced? How complex are the strategies? What is the timeframe for needing information? Finally, what are the overall program resources being invested? In response to these questions, the evaluation approach selected may range from retrospective to real-time evaluation or a combination of both, using qualitative and quantitative data, and loosely aligned or highly rigorous methods. We also encourage staff to consider their monitoring, evaluation, and learning needs at the beginning of a subprogram. We have found that doing so is more likely to lead to logic models, outcomes, indicators, and dashboards that are useful to informing decision making and program improvement rather than being requirements that are imposed on the subprogram with no connection to programmatic work.

Making the shifts from evaluation for proof to evaluation for program improvement was greatly aided by practices that were already underway within the Foundation. Since 2004 our Preschool subprogram has been engaged with the Harvard Family Research Project in a real-time evaluation. The HFRP's approach represented a new way of doing evaluation at the Foundation. The evaluation has in many ways been a strategic partner by serving as a mechanism for the timely flow of strategic information to facilitate the Preschool subprogram's development. From the start, its emphasis has been on continuous (or real-time) feedback and learning. Because the strategy relied on advocacy and policy change, for which there were practically no established evaluation methods, the evaluation also required methodological creativity. Traditional evaluation approaches in which the evaluator develops an evaluation design and then reports back when the data are all collected and analyzed, or in which the evaluator assesses impact after the strategy has been implemented, would have been less useful here.

The importance of these practices may sound self-evident, i.e., everyone should do these, but they are much harder to actually carry out. Not everything has worked as planned in these evaluations, but both program staff and the evaluators have become skilled at adaptation. The evaluation field has room for growth if more evaluation is going to be real-time. Evaluators themselves are learning how to be both rigorous and faster. I like what IDEO is doing in this space. I think it is just the kind of integration of evaluation rigor, rapid cycles, and continuous feedback that many of us are looking for to build into our practice.

Much has been made of the distinction between evaluations designed for accountability (determining whether a program did what it said it would do) and evaluations designed for learning (supporting ongoing decision making and continuous improvement). In truth, evaluations rarely are either one or the other. Typically they must be both (e.g., a program officer may be more interested in learning while a board member may be more interested in accountability), and the evaluation must find a way to ensure that both users' needs are met.

Balance and feedback are key here. How can we get the highest quality information we need, when we need it, to make the best program strategy decisions without undue burden of reporting among those we rely upon for data? And while we might have these good intentions within the Packard Foundation, they will not mean much if they don't translate into real value, that is, impact. At the forefront, our focus is still on the key questions: What are our goals or outcomes we want to achieve? Are we meeting them? It is the real-time aspect that allows us to better know if we are making progress towards those outcomes, what is contributing to our progress (or lack of it), and therefore how to make better strategy decisions along the way.

Guest blogger Gale Berkowitz directs evaluation at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Articles
via Chela Horsdal / Twitter

Amazon's "The Man in the High Castle" debuted the first episode of its final season last week.

The show is loosely based on an alternative history novel by Philip K. Dick that postulates what would happen if Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan controlled the United States after being victorious in World War II.

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Mike Mozart / Flickr

Chick-fil-A is the third-largest fast food chain in America, behind McDonald's and Starbucks, raking in over $10 billion a year.

But for years, the company has faced boycotts for supporting anti-LGBT charities, including the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.

The Salvation Army faced criticism after a leader in the organization implied that gay people "deserve to die" and the company also came under fire after refusing to offer same-sex couples health insurance. But the organization swears it's evolving on such issues.

via Thomas Hawk / Flickr

The Fellowship of Christian Athletes explicitly announced it was anti gay marriage in a recent "Statement of Faith."

God instituted marriage between one man and one woman as the foundation of the family and the basic structure of human society. For this reason, we believe that marriage is exclusively the union of one man and one woman.

The Paul Anderson Youth Home teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong and that same-sex marriage is "rage against Jesus Christ and His values."

RELATED: The 1975's singer bravely kissed a man at a Dubai concert to protest anti-LGBT oppression

In 2012, Chick-fil-A's CEO, Dan Cathy, made anti same-sex marriage comments on a radio broadcast:

I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage". I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about.

But the chicken giant has now decided to change it's says its charitable donation strategy because it's bad for business...Not because being homophobic is wrong.

The company recently lost several bids to provide concessions in U.S. airports. A pop-up shop in England was told it would not be renewed after eight days following LGBTQ protests.

Chick-fil-A also has plans to expand to Boston, Massachusetts where its mayor, Thomas Menino, pledged to ban the restaurant from the city.

via Wikimedia Commons

"There's no question we know that, as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are," Chick-fil-A President and Chief Operating Officer Tim Tassopoulos told Bisnow. "There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message."

RELATED: Alan Turing will appear on the 50-pound note nearly 70 years after being persecuted for his sexuality

Instead, the Chick-fil-A Foundation plans to give $9 million to organizations that support education and fight homelessness. Which is commendable regardless of the company's troubled past.

"If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families," Drew Anderson, GLAAD's director of campaigns and rapid response, said in a statement.

Chick-fil-A's decision to back down from contributing to anti-LGBT charities shows the power that people have to fight back against companies by hitting them where it really hurts — the pocket book.

The question remains: If you previously avoided Chick-fil-A because it supported anti-LGBT organizations, is it now OK to eat there? Especially when Popeye's chicken sandwich is so good people will kill for it?

Lifestyle

Oh, irony. You are having quite a day.

The Italian region of Veneto, which includes the city of Venice, is currently experiencing historic flooding. Venice Mayor Luigi Brugnaro has stated that the flooding is a direct result of climate change, with the tide measuring the highest level in 50 years. The city (which is actually a collection of 100 islands in a lagoon—hence its famous canal streets), is no stranger to regular flooding, but is currently on the brink of declaring a state of emergency as waters refuse to recede.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet
via Gage Skidmore / Flickr and nrkbeta / flickr

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) dropped a bombshell on Tuesday, announcing it had over 900 emails that White House aide Stephen Miller sent to former Breitbart writer and editor Katie McHugh.

According to the SPLC, in the emails, Miller aggressively "promoted white nationalist literature, pushed racist immigration stories and obsessed over the loss of Confederate symbols after Dylann Roof's murderous rampage."

Keep Reading Show less
Politics
via Twitter / Bye,Bye Harley Davidson

The NRA likes to diminish the role that guns play in fatal shootings by saying, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Which is the same logic as, "Hammers don't build roofs, people build roofs." No duh. But it'd be nearly impossible to build a roof without a hammer.

So, shouldn't the people who manufacture guns share some responsibility when they are used for the purpose they're made: killing people? Especially when the manufacturers market the weapon for that exact purpose?

Keep Reading Show less
Business