Evaluating projects in multifaceted and marginalised communities: The need for mixed approaches
| DOI | 10.1177/1035719X19832688 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| Author | Pamela Taylor-Barnett,Liz Curran |
| Subject Matter | Practice Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1035719X19832688
Evaluation Journal of Australasia
2019, Vol. 19(1) 22 –38
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1035719X19832688
journals.sagepub.com/home/evj
Evaluating projects
in multifaceted and
marginalised communities:
The need for mixed
approaches
Liz Curran and Pamela Taylor-Barnett
The Australian National University, Australia
Abstract
This article examines the evaluation process and approach undertaken for a recent
3-year Integrated Justice Practice project. Three key approaches underpinned the
evaluation framework or program logic: participatory evaluation, action research,
and continuous reflective practice. The project involved an evaluation of community
agencies working in complex settings, within a human service delivery context.
The mix of processes encouraged these agencies to own the evaluation through
providing clarity and grounded information about what works, how, and what
does not work and why, so as to improve both service delivery and community
understanding, and to affect policy and funding settings. The discussion is situated
within several theories of ‘participatory evaluation’ – meaning that the views of
service receivers and providers were included both in the research and in its design.
These perspectives were essential because input from young people about how
legal services support them, and from providers about the policies services adopt is
rare. The services and their partners reported that the evaluation process had been
‘transformative’, with each identifying changes in practice. It’s also edifying for the
evaluators, revealing that cultural competency, trust, respect and safety are critical
elements when engaging with young people with unresolved legal issues, including
family violence.
Corresponding authors:
Liz Curran, ANU School of Legal Practice, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2600,
Australia.
Email: Liz.Curran@anu.edu.au
Pamela Taylor-Barnett, ANU School of Legal Practice, The Australian University, Canberra, ACT 2600,
Australia.
Email: Pamela.Taylor-Barnett@anu.edu.au
832688EVJ0010.1177/1035719X19832688Evaluation Journal of AustralasiaCurran and Taylor-Barnett
research-article2019
Practice Article
Curran and Taylor-Barnett 23
Keywords
access to justice, health justice partnership, impact evaluation, participatory
evaluation, reflective practice, social justice
Introduction
This article explores an evaluation process and approach undertaken in a recent 3-year
research and evaluation project which came to be described as an Integrated Justice
Practice (IJP).1 The discussion considers the evaluation approaches undertaken within
a specific service project and aims to identify learnings about evaluation processes and
conduct. In undertaking this research and evaluation project (hereinafter referred to as
the IJP evaluation), the authors adopted three key approaches which underpinned the
framework and project logic: participatory evaluation, action research, and continuous
reflective practice. These approaches all sit within the overall framework of participa-
tory evaluation, which was chosen because of its value in working to represent the
voices of those with lived experience. These approaches also aligned with the philoso-
phy and values of the authors and the manner in which they conduct their evaluation
practice, and additionally, with the values of the four partner agencies in the modest
service project being evaluated.
The authors argue that an ethical, value-based approach to evaluation (Gullickson,
2018) helps ensure the process is informed by lived experience. Participatory evalua-
tion is particularly important for members of the community who have been excluded
from research processes, or have historically remained at the fringes of research, for
example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In this project, input from
people with lived experience has been sought by (1) including participatory opportuni-
ties in the evaluation design and (2) reflection and dialogue between the evaluators,
community affected, service providers and organisational management, at the begin-
ning, throughout, and at the end of the project. These methods mean the lessons learned
from the exercise have the opportunity to be more transformative for the services
being evaluated, partners, practitioners, funders, the evaluators, policy makers and,
importantly, the community being serviced. Given the audience for this publication,
this article will focus on the conduct and process of the IJP evaluation. A future article
is planned which will examine the findings of the IJP evaluation itself.
Background to the evaluation
The project being evaluated, the ‘Invisible Hurdles project’ (IH project), aimed to
produce ‘better outcomes for young people experiencing family violence in north-
east Victoria’.2 A key objective of that project is to build stronger partnerships
between legal and non-legal service providers, and for the partners to create better
referral pathways to ‘joined-up’ services that are available to young persons aged
15–25 years experiencing family violence. It is a project of Hume Riverina
Community Legal Service (HRCLS) and was funded by the Victorian Legal Services
Board and Commissioner (VLSB + C) Grants program for a period from the end of
To continue reading
Request your trial