1 / 9

Monitoring & Evaluation of Livingwell

Monitoring & Evaluation of Livingwell. Workshop at Annual Conference. Workshop Structure. Part 1: Presentation GHK and this study Challenges facing us Two possible approaches The one we used Part 2: Group Discussion. Who are GHK? What are we doing?. GHK: Employee-owned research firm

audra-hoffman
Télécharger la présentation

Monitoring & Evaluation of Livingwell

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Monitoring & Evaluation of Livingwell Workshop at Annual Conference

  2. Workshop Structure Part 1: Presentation • GHK and this study • Challenges facing us • Two possible approaches • The one we used Part 2: Group Discussion

  3. Who are GHK? What are we doing? • GHK: • Employee-owned research firm • Multi-disciplinary: work in most policy areas • Specialism in evaluation • Local • Livingwell Project: • WMRA • Quarterly monitoring • Ongoing evaluation • Of projects, but at regional level

  4. Inherent Challenges • All the usual evaluation challenges, plus… • Diversity of projects: • £ • target groups • desired outcomes • interventions • contexts • capacity at project level • The need to ‘add it up’ to regional level: • Inputs (£) are easy…outputs more problematic…outcomes the real challenge

  5. One Possible Response & Our Approach • Possible Response: • Decide what a wellbeing is • Give projects a tool to measure it • Advantage: can add this up easily (compare approaches??) • Disadvantage: ignores complexity / reality • Our Approach: • From the ‘project up’ (not ‘programme down’) • Based on individual project plans • Guidance and support to projects’ self-evaluation • Backed by some external evaluation

  6. Basis of Approach: Theories of Change Rationale for intervention (problem / opportunity – and most appropriate response - identified) Inputs (what you have) Impact (wider societal change) Outcomes (the effect this has) Activities (what you do) Do this for each project, then add-up each element ...

  7. Applying this Model • Project M&E plans: • Project-level theory of change • Specific quarterly / annual indicators • Common tools for common outcomes, e.g. Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale • Common outcomes at ‘theme’ level • But – not a blanket approach (e.g. adults with learning difficulties / low project capacity) • Where does this leave us? • Allows aggregation, but retains flexibility • Makes our job more complex, but more like the real world!

  8. Final Reflections • Needs different skills: • More collaborative • More facilitative • Understand constraints facing practitioners • Requires a balance between: • Adding things up (quantitative) • Explaining and learning (qualitative) • Overall, a sound approach - given challenges outlined at start

  9. Thank-you for Listening Questions & Group Discussion

More Related