Facilitating UFE stepbystep a process guide for evaluators

Facilitating UFE step-by-step: a process guide for evaluators Module 1: Steps 1 -3 of UFE checklist https: //creativecommons. org/licenses/by-sa/4. 0/ Joaquín Navas & Ricardo Ramírez December, 2009

Note to evaluator… The overall purpose of this presentation is to guide evaluators through the completion of steps 1 to 3 of the UFE checklist. The main goal is to suggest a process that can help evaluators present the UFE principles and select primary users. (PLEASE READ THE NOTES SECTION OF THE DIFFERENT SLIDES). Please adapt this presentation to the context of the project that you are evaluating and to your facilitation style.

Agenda 1. UFE – What is it? What for? 2. Stakeholder identification 3. Roles definition 4. Recess 5. Steps 1 – 3: Are we ready for UFE?

Program evaluation is… Systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and results of programs to make judgments about the project / network, improve or further develop project / network effectiveness, inform decisions about future programming, and / or increase understanding.

The ideal evaluation conditions According to the American Evaluation Association, these are some of the ideal conditions for program evaluation, which are seldom met (Patton, 2008: 198): 1. The program’s goals are clear, specific, and measurable. 2. The evaluator has ready access to all necessary data and enthusiastic cooperation from all necessary people. 3. The evaluator’s role is clear and accepted. 4. There adequate resources and sufficient time to conduct a comprehensive and rigorous evaluation. 5. The original evaluation proposal can be implemented and designed.

Trends in the literature on evaluation CONTEXT: context as a factor explaining use (this includes organizational and project culture, time and resource constraints, physical and social conditions). DIFFERENT TYPES or LEVELS OF USE: from the individual to the organizational level. ROLE OF THE EVALUATOR: diversified to include facilitation, planning and training.

A collaborative approach means… • Maintenance of an ongoing focus on LEARNING. • Clarification of ROLES and EXPECTATIONS. • Creation of spaces for DIALOGUE. • JOINT FOCUS on all issues being investigated. • Attention to the VALIDATION of findings. • Joint INTERPRETATION of results.

Engaging users contributes to Personal LEARNING among them. More CONFIDENCE and direct APPLICATION of evaluation findings to program practices. A reduced POWER DIFFERENTIAL between evaluators and program practitioners. More NEGOTIATED DECISION MAKING and learning.

Utilization focused evaluation is… A decision-making framework for enhancing the utility and actual use of evaluations. (Patton, 2008 a: slide 9)

Utilization focused evaluation is… A PROCESS for helping primary intended users select the most appropriate content, model, methods, theory, and uses for their particular situation. However, UFE does not advocate any particular evaluation content, model, method or theory. Situational responsiveness guides the interactive process between evaluator and primary intended users. Evaluation done for and with specific, intended primary USERS for specific, intended USES. “USES” refers to the way real people in the real world APPLY evaluation findings and experience the evaluation PROCESS. (Patton, 2008: 37 - Ch. 2)

UFE : KEY POINTS What is unique in this project in terms of: 1. Context 2. The role of the evaluators 3. Collaborative approaches

Premises of UFE 1. Evaluations should be JUDGED by their utility and ACTUAL USE. 2. No evaluation should go forward unless and until there are primary intended users who will use the information that can be produced. 3. Primary intended users are involved in the process. 4. Evaluation is part of initial program design. The primary intended users want information to help answer a question or questions. 5. Evaluator’s role is to help intended users clarify their purpose and objectives. 6. Implications for use are part of every decision throughout the evaluation – it is the driving force of the evaluation process. (Patton, 2008 a)

UFE in 12 steps 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Project / network readiness assessment. Evaluator readiness and capability assessment. Identification of primary intended users. Situational analysis. Identification of primary intended uses. Focusing on evaluation. Evaluation design. Simulation of use. Data collection. Data analysis. Facilitate use. Meta-evaluation.

Conventional Evaluation Vs. Developmental Evaluation Render definitive judgment of success or failure. Provide feedback, generate learnings, support changes in direction. Position the evaluator outside to assure independence and objectivity. Position evaluation as an internal process that integrates team functions into action. Design the evaluation based on linear cause-and-effect logic models. Design evaluation to capture systems dynamics, interdependencies, and emergent interconnections. Aim to produce generalizable findings across time and space. Aim to produce context-specific understandings. Evaluator determines the design based on the evaluator’s perspective about what is important. Evaluator collaborates with those engaged in the change effort to design the evaluation process.

References Gamble, 2008. Developmental evaluation. Montreal: Mc. Connell Foundation Henry, G. T. & Mark, M. M. (2003) Beyond use: Understanding evaluation’s influence on attitudes and actions. American Journal of Evaluation 24 (3): 293 -314. Mc. Connell Foundation. (2006) Sustaining social innovation: Developmental evaluation. www. mcconnellfoundation. ca/default. aspx? page=139 11/Feb/09 Patton, M. Q. (2008) Utilization focused evaluation, 4 th Edition. Sage. Patton, M. Q. (2008 a) Utilization focused evaluation. Presentation to the AEA. Shulha, L. & Cousins, J. (1997) Evaluation use: Theory, research, and practice since 1986. Evaluation Practice, 18(3), Fall, 195 -208.

Comments / Questions

Think back about your best evaluation experience… To what extent was your best evaluation experience compatible with UFE? Review it in terms of: • The USERS: were they identified? • The specific USES: were they clear? • User ENGAGEMENT: how and why?

¿Who are the stakeholders that are or need to be involved in this project?

ROLES (1 of 3) EVALUATOR: Person or organization responsible for facilitating / leading the design, the implementation and the utilization of the evaluation. Tasks: organizational development agent, educator, coach/mentor, strategic planner, etc.

ROLES (2 of 3) PRIMARY USER: People who will use and apply the findings of the evaluation. Patton (2008) suggests the following profiler: 1. Interested. 2. Knowledgeable. 3. Open minded. 4. Represents an important interest group. 5. Has credibility. 6. Teachable. 7. Available for ongoing interaction throughout the evaluation process.

ROLES (3 de 3) AUDIENCE INTERESTED IN THE REPORT: Actors interested in the unfolding and findings of the evaluation.

¿From the stakeholders that were identified, who plays what role?

¿Who is missing?

BREAK

We don’t want to end up in this situation, so…

¿How well prepared do we feel for adopting UFE as the methodology to evaluate this project?

UFE traps or temptations (1 of 2) • Evaluators make themselves the primary decision makers. • Identify vague, passive audiences as users. • Targeting organizations as users. • Focusing on decisions instead of decision makers. • Assuming the evaluation’s funder is the primary stakeholder.

UFE traps or temptations (2 of 2) • Waiting until the findings are in to identify intended users and intended uses. • Taking a stance of standing above the messiness of people and politics. • Being co-opted by powerful stakeholders. • Identifying primary intended users but not involving them meaningfully. (Patton, 2008, adapted from p. 90 - Ch. 3)

Under what conditions… Are the traps are real? What can you do from the START to minimize the risk of falling into them? How have you addressed the risk of falling into these traps? What other traps or temptations have you faced?

¿How well prepared do we feel we are for adopting UFE as the methodology to evaluate this project?

What resources do we require in order to implement a UFE plan? Is the program willing/ready to allocate the required resources?

Are all involved parties supportive of adopting a UFE approach? ¿What can be done to increase such support?

What could the main challenges of this evaluation initiative be? ¿Do we feel well-enough prepared to face these challenges?

¿Do the evaluators feel prepared to have their effectiveness judged by the use that the primary intended users will give to the findings of the evaluation?

Conclusions and next steps