Empowerment Evaluation of Programs Involving Youth

Sarah Heath, K. Moreau
{"title":"Empowerment Evaluation of Programs Involving Youth","authors":"Sarah Heath, K. Moreau","doi":"10.56645/jmde.v18i42.711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Participatory and collaborative evaluation approaches, including Empowerment Evaluation (EE), are useful for evaluating programs involving youth. Empowerment evaluation involves stakeholders in the evaluation process through a set of structured steps. It is primarily concerned with empowering, illuminating, and building program beneficiaries’ self-determination. Given the emphasis that EE places on inclusivity of stakeholders, it appears to be a good fit for evaluating programs that involve youth. \nPurpose: To explore the extent to which evaluators use EE to evaluate programs involving youth as well as what factor(s) facilitate and hinder their use of EE in these programs. \nSetting: The study involved evaluators associated with the Collaborative, Participatory and Empowerment Evaluation and Youth-Focused Evaluation Targeted Interest Groups (TIGs) of the American Evaluation Association (AEA) who are involved in evaluating programs targeted at youth. \nIntervention: Not applicable. \nResearch Design: We used a two-phase sequential mixed-methods research design. In Phase 1, we surveyed evaluators. In Phase 2, we interviewed a sample of evaluators from Phase 1.  \nFindings: In Phase 1, 41 (53.9%) respondents indicated not using EE to evaluate programs involving youth, 30 (39.5%) had used EE and 5 (6.6%) were unsure. Of those who used EE, they used it to teach youth program stakeholders about evaluation (n=8, 24.2%), produce more authentic results by engaging youth as experts of their lived experience (n=7, 21.2%) or produce more useful results for stakeholders to use (n=6, 18.2%), as well as other less popular reasons. In Phase 2, 12 interviewees raised five factors that facilitate or hinder the use of EE to evaluate programs involving youth including, evaluator perceptions, type of evaluation experience, evaluator knowledge and professional training, guidelines from organizations and funders, and stakeholders and time. Factors that some interviewees viewed as facilitators others viewed as hinderances. \n  \nKeywords: empowerment evaluation, program evaluation, youth-focused evaluation \n  \n ","PeriodicalId":91909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v18i42.711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Participatory and collaborative evaluation approaches, including Empowerment Evaluation (EE), are useful for evaluating programs involving youth. Empowerment evaluation involves stakeholders in the evaluation process through a set of structured steps. It is primarily concerned with empowering, illuminating, and building program beneficiaries’ self-determination. Given the emphasis that EE places on inclusivity of stakeholders, it appears to be a good fit for evaluating programs that involve youth. Purpose: To explore the extent to which evaluators use EE to evaluate programs involving youth as well as what factor(s) facilitate and hinder their use of EE in these programs. Setting: The study involved evaluators associated with the Collaborative, Participatory and Empowerment Evaluation and Youth-Focused Evaluation Targeted Interest Groups (TIGs) of the American Evaluation Association (AEA) who are involved in evaluating programs targeted at youth. Intervention: Not applicable. Research Design: We used a two-phase sequential mixed-methods research design. In Phase 1, we surveyed evaluators. In Phase 2, we interviewed a sample of evaluators from Phase 1.  Findings: In Phase 1, 41 (53.9%) respondents indicated not using EE to evaluate programs involving youth, 30 (39.5%) had used EE and 5 (6.6%) were unsure. Of those who used EE, they used it to teach youth program stakeholders about evaluation (n=8, 24.2%), produce more authentic results by engaging youth as experts of their lived experience (n=7, 21.2%) or produce more useful results for stakeholders to use (n=6, 18.2%), as well as other less popular reasons. In Phase 2, 12 interviewees raised five factors that facilitate or hinder the use of EE to evaluate programs involving youth including, evaluator perceptions, type of evaluation experience, evaluator knowledge and professional training, guidelines from organizations and funders, and stakeholders and time. Factors that some interviewees viewed as facilitators others viewed as hinderances.   Keywords: empowerment evaluation, program evaluation, youth-focused evaluation    
青少年参与计划之赋权评估
背景:参与式和协作式评估方法,包括赋权评估(EE),对于评估涉及青年的项目是有用的。授权评估通过一组结构化步骤将涉众纳入评估过程。它主要关注的是授权、启发和建立项目受益人的自决。鉴于EE强调利益相关者的包容性,它似乎很适合评估涉及年轻人的项目。目的:探讨评估者在多大程度上使用情感表达来评估涉及青少年的项目,以及哪些因素促进和阻碍了他们在这些项目中使用情感表达。背景:该研究涉及与美国评估协会(AEA)的合作、参与和赋权评估以及以青年为重点的评估目标兴趣小组(TIGs)相关的评估人员,他们参与了针对青年的评估项目。干预:不适用。研究设计:采用两阶段顺序混合方法研究设计。在第1阶段,我们调查了评估人员。在阶段2中,我们采访了来自阶段1的评估人员样本。结果:在第一阶段,41名(53.9%)受访者表示没有使用情感表达来评估涉及青少年的项目,30名(39.5%)受访者使用情感表达,5名(6.6%)受访者不确定。在那些使用情感表达的人中,他们用它来教授青年项目利益相关者关于评估的知识(n=8, 24.2%),通过让青年作为他们生活经验的专家来产生更真实的结果(n=7, 21.2%),或者产生更有用的结果供利益相关者使用(n=6, 18.2%),以及其他不太受欢迎的原因。在第二阶段,12位受访者提出了促进或阻碍使用情感表达来评估涉及青年的项目的五个因素,包括评估者的看法、评估经验的类型、评估者的知识和专业培训、组织和资助者的指导方针、利益相关者和时间。一些受访者认为是促进因素,另一些人认为是阻碍因素。关键词:赋权评价、项目评价、青年评价
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信