Campaigns to End Violence against Women and Girls - Virtual ...

� Self-Determination of Exposure: Some individuals in a targeted area will not be
exposed to a campaign. For example, they might not have a television or listen to the
radio or read the newspaper. These individuals can be invited to serve as a
comparison group, e.g. by responding to the same questionnaire that is administered
to individuals who have been exposed. (Adapted from Coffman, J., Harvard Family
Research Project, 2002. Public Communication Campaign Evaluation)
Attribution versus Contribution
It is difficult to measure precisely how and to what extent a campaign has impacted the
target audience. The “how” can be inferred through more qualitative surveys, while
extent could be measured through random controlled trials (RCT) (see above).
Nonetheless, it will generally be extremely difficult or impossible for evaluations to
precisely attribute change to the campaign, or to specific campaign activities. In most
cases, it is more appropriate to focus on the contribution a campaign has made
towards achieving its goal by producing its outcomes, acknowledging the multiplicity of
factors that contribute to – or impede – change.
Cognitive variables such as knowledge and attitudes of the target audience can be
measured, to a certain extent, as part of the baseline study, and then again during a
later evaluation for comparison. If changes in these variables are observed, it is
legitimate to assume that the campaign has contributed to these outcomes, even though
it may be impossible to quantify impact. If no change or even negative change is
observed, scanning the environment for factors external to the campaign that could have
impeded goal attainment helps to determine whether failure is mainly attributable to the
elements of the campaign or to external factors, e.g. a strong counter-campaign by a
social movement that opposes gender equality.
In some cases, campaign evaluations have no access to baseline data and
consequently rely on respondents’ retrospective self-assessment of change (e.g.
through the Most significant change technique or MST) to evaluate if exposure to the
campaign has had any impact on the target audience. This can be an effective approach
to assessing campaign effectiveness if no other methods are available.
“Ultimately there are the campaign goal(s) – the impact it seeks in changing the relations
and structures of power that lead to gender violence. The changes it seeks occur in
heterogeneous contexts, are indefinite in time, and depend on the actions and decisions
of many more actors than the members of the campaign team. So, when there is a
change that represents impact, who can assume credit for the change? Who is
accountable for what changes (and does not change), and to whom and how? These
problems of attribution and aggregation mean that a campaign at best will contribute
indirectly and partially to impact.”
- Ricardo Wilson-Grau, personal communication
7.11 SHARING FINDINGS
Monitoring and evaluation can only be useful if findings are shared in a timely, effective
manner with those who will use the information.
292
Campaigns December 2011