Jump to:Page Content
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
The Harvard Family Research Project separated from the Harvard Graduate School of Education to become the Global Family Research Project as of January 1, 2017. It is no longer affiliated with Harvard University.
|
Using a participatory/empowerment evaluation approach with Save the Children, Linda Morrell and Kenneth Terao from the Aguirre Group offer reflections and lessons learned from their experience.
HFRP asked Michelle Seligson, founder of the National Institute on Out-of-School Time, about the history of the out-of-school time field, the challenges it currently faces, and the role evaluation and research play.
Karen Walker, director of community studies at Public/Private Ventures (P/PV), reveals what evaluation approaches can be used to understand the connection between academic outcomes and program activities.
These Web documents were produced by HFRP as part of its initial efforts to “map” the out-of-school time field, and detail federal funding streams for out-of-school time programs and related programming alongside their accountability requirements and evaluations. A summary section offers a narrative description of each funding stream. Funding streams are classified as major or minor depending on the amount of money they make available for out-of-school time efforts.
The out-of-school time field has grown rapidly over the past decade, with a constant influx of new voices and approaches. This publication is a summary, but far from a complete review, of organizations active in out-of-school time, grouped by topical area.
Jill Chopyak, Executive Director of the Loka Institute, details her organization's work on community action research.
JuNelle Harris of Harvard Family Research Project reveals the results of the recent satisfaction survey of The Evaluation Exchange readers.
This issue of The Evaluation Exchange includes several articles on methodological topics, particularly those involving complex initiatives or problems. Topics inlcude the logic model approach to evaluate large and diverse foundation initiatives, the difference between cost-benefit analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis, the challenges to evaluation in the coming years, and community action research.
Danielle Hollar of Harvard Family Research Project writes about the possibility of using an approach that provides a more comprehensive picture of the quality of people’s lives to examine the impact of welfare reform on individuals.
The New and Noteworthy section features an annotated list of papers, organizations, initiatives, and other resources related to the issue's theme of Methodology.
The Electronic Mailbox section features a list of useful resources on the Internet relating to the issue's theme of Methodology.
An introduction to the first issue on Methodology by HFRP's Founder & Director, Heather B. Weiss, Ed.D.
Julia Coffman of Harvard Family Research Project writes about using a logic model approach to evaluate a large and diverse foundation initiative.
James Edwin Kee, professor at George Washington University, discusses the purposes, strengths, and limitations of benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses to determine the relative costs and benefits of the programs.
Ellen Taylor-Powell from the University of Wisconsin-Cooperative Extension examines the challenges of collaboratives, and how they stretch us to think about evaluation in new ways.
Michael Scriven, past president of the American Evaluation Association, shares some of his insights about the challenges facing evaluation, evaluation as a distinct discipline, and links between evaluation and practice, including organizational learning.
Donna Peterson, Mary Marczak, Sherry Betts, and Erik Earthman, The University of Arizona Institute for Children, Youth and Families, write about their evaluation of the Children, Youth and Families At Risk (CYFAR) National Initiative.
Laura Pinsoneault and James Sass from Alliance for Children and Families on their organization's replication and evaluation of the middle school adaptation of the Families and Schools Together (FAST) program.
Dale Blyth, Director of the Center for 4-H Youth Development, discusses evaluating strength-based approaches to youth development, which focus on developing desired traits in youth.
This issue of The Evaluation Exchange is devoted to the evaluation of youth programs that support positive youth development. Topics include evaluating strength-based approaches to youth development, youth participation in evaluation, lessons learned from the international community on evaluating youth programs, and foundation grantmaking for children and youth.
Karen Pittman, Senior Vice President of the International Youth Foundation, spoke about the challenges to evaluating youth development programs, issues with promoting policy changes and scale-up, and other countries’ experiences with youth development programming.
Harvard Family Research Project describes a couple of upcoming evaluation conferences.
Stacy Constantineau Meade of Michigan Public Health Institute writes about the increasingly important role of evaluation in enabling communities to promote and sustain change.
Heather Weiss and M. Elena Lopez of Harvard Family Research Project reveal the results of their W. K. Kellogg Foundation commission to examine trends in foundation grantmaking for children and youth.
The New and Noteworthy section features an annotated list of papers, organizations, initiatives, and other resources related to the issue's theme of Children and Youth.