12.07.2015 Views

Local Evaluation of Children's Services Learning from the Children's ...

Local Evaluation of Children's Services Learning from the Children's ...

Local Evaluation of Children's Services Learning from the Children's ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

1. Process evaluation: critical assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> processes used to deliver <strong>the</strong>Fund, mainly prevention, partnership and participation, but also strategic plansand <strong>the</strong> commissioning and monitoring processes.2. Impact evaluation: critical assessment <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> impact <strong>the</strong> processes have hadon <strong>the</strong> children and families who access Children’s Fund services. Specifically<strong>the</strong> impact that government envisions in <strong>the</strong> Children Act 2004Some evaluations placed more emphasis on generating learning about processes,while o<strong>the</strong>rs placed more emphasis on evaluating impacts. Hence, local evaluationstend to correspond with both <strong>the</strong> generating learning/informing organisations’development and performance management roles outlined in Table 1.Many evaluators appear, however, to have adopted different roles over <strong>the</strong> course <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>ir work. In <strong>the</strong> early stages <strong>of</strong> partnerships’ development, evaluators tended t<strong>of</strong>ocus on providing feedback on processes such as commissioning and partnershipworking, and in doing so adopted formative forms <strong>of</strong> engagement with partnerships inwhich <strong>the</strong>y supported early strategic planning and <strong>the</strong> ongoing management anddevelopment <strong>of</strong> programmes. As partnerships became more established manyevaluations switched <strong>the</strong>ir focus to producing summative outputs in which <strong>the</strong>ymeasured impacts/outcomes. They also focussed on aspects <strong>of</strong> programmes whichhad been successful in meeting targets and sought to more systematically identifyareas <strong>of</strong> work which would be appropriate to continue to fund or to promote formainstreaming.The majority <strong>of</strong> evaluators described <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> evaluating impacts and that <strong>of</strong>generating information to inform ongoing development <strong>of</strong> partnerships asoverlapping; <strong>the</strong> former is expected to form an evidence base for partnershipdecision making, ra<strong>the</strong>r than simply a summative record <strong>of</strong> performance. Illustratingthis overlap, an evaluation report <strong>of</strong> a Wave Three partnership emphasises <strong>the</strong>analysis <strong>of</strong> partnership and project performance, findings <strong>from</strong> which form anevidence-base that is intended to inform <strong>the</strong> programme and strategic development<strong>of</strong> mainstream agencies:The aim <strong>of</strong> this local evaluation is to provide <strong>the</strong> partnership and projects withan analysis <strong>of</strong> current performance, and to use this understanding to develop astrong evidence base to make changes and improvements to <strong>the</strong> programme,which can also feed into mainstream provision and strategic development.8Chapter 1

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!