Learning through evaluation? Reflections on two federal community-building initiatives

Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation

Volumn 24, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 51-77

  Bradford, Neil ^a   Chouinard, Jill Anne ^b  

^a HURON UNIVERSITY COLLEGE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80054108453     PISSN: 08341516     EISSN: 00077720     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Alderson-Gill & Associates Consulting Inc. (2005). Urban Aboriginal strategy pilot projects formative evaluation: Final report. Ottawa, ON: Office of the Federal Interlocutor, Indian and Northern Affairs.
2. Allen, M., & Black, M. (2006). Dual level evaluation and complex community initiatives: The local evaluation of Sure Start. Evaluation, 12(2), 237-249. (Pubitemid 44179485)
3. Aucoin, P. (1995). The new public management: Canada in comparative perspective. Montreal, PQ: Institute for Research on Public Policy.
4. Auspos, P., & Kubisch, A.C. (2004). Building community knowledge about community change: Moving beyond evaluations. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change.
5. Bakvis, H., & Juillet, L. (2004). The horizontal challenge: Line departments, central agencies and leadership. Ottawa, ON: Canada School of Public Service.
6. Beauvais, C., & Jenson, J. (2003). The well-being of children: Are there "neighbourhood effects"? (Discussion paper F/31). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
7. Blalock, A.B. (1999). Evaluation research and the performance management movement: From estrangement to useful integration. Evaluation, 5(2), 117-149.
8. Boismenu, G., & Graefe, P. (2004). The new federal tool belt: Attempts to rebuild social policy leadership. Canadian Public Policy, 30(1), 71-89.
9. Bradford, N. (2005). Place-based public policy: Towards a new urban and community agenda for Canada (Research report F/51). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
10. Canadian Council on Social Development. (2006). Pan-Canadian funding practice in communities: Challenges and opportunities for the government of Canada. Final Report. Ottawa, ON: Author.
11. Chouinard, J.A., & Cousins, J.B. (2007). Culturally competent evaluation for Aboriginal communities: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, 4(8), 40-57.
12. Corburn, J. (2005). Street science: Community knowledge and environmental health justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
13. Cousins, J.B., & Earl, L.M. (1992). The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14(4), 397-418.
14. Cousins, J.B., & Earl, L.M. (1995). Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning. Washington, DC: Falmer Press.
15. Cousins, J.B., Goh, S.C., Elliott, C., & Aubry, T. (in press). Government and voluntary sector differences in organizational capacity to do and use evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning.
16. Davies, P., Newcomer, K., & Soydan, H. (2006). Government as structural context for evaluation. In I.E. Shaw, J.C. Greene, & M.M. Mark (Eds.), Handbook of evaluation: Policies, programs and practices (pp. 163-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17. Divay, G., & Seguin, A. (2003). Urban poverty: Fostering sustainable and supportive communities (Discussion paper F/27). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks.
18. Fredericks, K.A., Carman, J.G., & Birkland, T.A. (2001). Program evaluation in a challenging authorizing environment: Intergovernmental and interorganizational factors. New Directions for Evaluation, 95, 5-21.
19. Good, D. (2003). The politics of public management: The HRDC audit of grants and contributions. Toronto, ON: Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
20. Gorman, C. (2006). Orienteering over new ground: Action for neighbourhood change. Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
21. Gorman, C. (2007). The transition: Final reflections from the Action for Neighbourhood Change Research Project. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
22. Greene, J.C. (1999). The inequality of performance measurements. Evaluation, 5(2), 160-172.
23. Guzman, B.L., & Feria, A. (2002). Community-based organizations and state initiatives: The negotiation process of program evaluation. In E.R. Mohan, D.J. Bernstein, & M.D. Whitsett (Eds.), Responding to sponsors and stakeholders in complex evaluation environments. New Directions for Evaluation, No. 95 (pp. 57-72). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
24. Heisz, A., & McLeod, L. (2004). Low-income in census metropolitan areas, 1980-2000. Ottawa, ON: Statistics Canada.
25. Hertzman, C. (2000). The case for an early childhood development strategy. Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 1(2), 11-18.
26. House, E.R., & Howe, K.R. (2000). Deliberative democratic evaluation. In K.E. Ryan & L. DeStefano (Eds.), Evaluation as a democratic process: Promoting inclusion, dialogue, and deliberation, No. 85 (pp. 3-12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
27. Hughes, M., & Traynor, T. (2000). Reconciling process and outcome in evaluating community initiatives. Evaluation, 6(1), 37-49.
28. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. (2008). Urban Aboriginal Strategy - Backgrounder. Retrieved on September 20, 2008, from http://www. ainc-inac.gc.ca/ai/ofi/uas/bkg-eng.asp.
29. Jamieson, W., & Kinnon, D. (2007). Action for Neighbourhood Change (ANC) project: Summative evaluation: Main report, vols. 1 and 2. Ottawa, ON: JHG Consulting.
30. Jenson, J. (2004). Canada's new social risks: Directions for a new social architecture (Report F/43). Ottawa, ON: Canadian Policy Research Networks. Research.
31. Kubisch, A.C. (2005). Comprehensive community building initiatives - ten years later: What we have learned about the principles guiding the work. New Directions for Youth Development, 106, 17-26.
32. Kubisch, A.C., Fullbright-Anderson, K., & Connell, J.P. (1998). Evaluating community initiatives: A progress report. In K. Fullbright-Anderson, A.C. Kubisch, & J.P. Connell (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives, vol. 2: Theory, measurement, and analysis (pp. 1-12). Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
33. Lee, K. (2000). Urban poverty in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development.
34. Letiecq, B.L., & Bailey, S.J. (2004). Evaluating from the outside: Conducting cross-cultural evaluation research on an American Indian reservation. Evaluation Review, 28(4), 342-357.
35. Levitan-Reid, E. (2006). Asset-based, resident-led neighbourhood development. Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
36. Levitan-Reid, E., & Torjman, S. (2006). Evaluation framework for federal investment in the social economy: A discussion paper. Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
37. Makhoul, A. (2007a). ANC in Scarborough Village sets a good example for Toronto neighbourhoods. Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
38. Makhoul, A. (2007b). ANC sketches: Building a neighbourhood renewal process. Toronto, ON: Action for Neighbourhood Change.
39. Mayne, J., & Rist, R.C. (2006). Studies are not enough: The necessary transformation of evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21(3), 93-120.
40. McBride, S., & Shields, J. (1997). Dismantling a nation: The transition to corporate rule in Canada (2nd ed.). Halifax, NS: Fernwood.
41. McDavid, J.C. (2006). Will evaluation prosper in the future? Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21(3), 47-72.
42. McDavid, J.C., & Hawthorn, L.R.L. (2006). Program evaluation & performance measurement: An introduction to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. McDavid, J.C., & Huse, I. (2006). Will evaluation prosper in the future? Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 21(3), 47-72.
44. Meagher, S. (n.d.). A neighbourhood vitality index: An approach to measuring neighbourhood well-being (Action for Neighbourhood Change report). Toronto: United Way of Greater Toronto.
45. Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. (1996). The report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Ottawa, ON: Author.
46. Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. (1997). Gathering strength: Canada's Aboriginal plan. Ottawa, ON: Author.
47. Patton, M.Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Peach, I. (2004). Managing complexity: The lessons of horizontal policy-making in the provinces. Regina, SK: Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy.
49. Phillips, S. (2004, July). The myth of horizontal governance: Is the third sector really a partner? Paper presented to the International Society for Third-Sector Research Conference, Toronto, ON.
50. Phillips, S. (2006). The intersection of governance and citizenship in Canada: Not quite the third way. Institute for Research on Public Policy, Policy Matters, 7(4).
51. Preskill, H.S., & Torres, R.T. (1999). Building capacity for organizational learning through evaluative inquiry. Evaluation, 5(1), 42-60.
52. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America's declining social capital and public life. Journal of Democracy, 6, 65-78.
53. Rice, J., & Prince, M. (2000). Changing politics of Canadian social policy. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
54. Salamon, L. (2005). The new governance: Getting beyond the right answer to the wrong question in public sector reform (J. Douglas Gibson Lecture). Kingston, ON: Queen's School of Policy Studies.
55. Sampson, R. (1999). What "community" supplies. In R.F. Ferguson & W.T. Dickens (Eds.), Urban problems and community development (pp. 241-279). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
56. Sanderson, I. (2000). Evaluation in complex policy systems. Evaluation, 6(4), 433-454.
57. Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1-22. (Pubitemid 34209785)
58. Scheirer, M.A., & Newcomer, K. (2001). Opportunities for program evaluators to facilitate performance-based management. Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 63-71. (Pubitemid 33648860)
59. Schwandt, T.A. (2003). 'Back to the rough ground!' Beyond theory to practice in evaluation. Evaluation, 9(3), 353-364.
60. Schwandt, T.A. (2005). The centrality of practice to evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(1), 95-105. (Pubitemid 40328320)
61. Scott, K. (2003). Funding matters: The impact of Canada's new funding regime on non-profit and voluntary sector organizations. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Council on Social Development.
62. Spence, C., & Findlay, I.M. (2007). Evaluation of Saskatoon urban Aboriginal strategy. Saskatoon, SK: Community-University Institute for Social Research, University of Saskatchewan.
63. Task Force on Community Investments. (2006). Achieving coherence in Government of Canada funding practices in communities. Ottawa, ON: Human Resources and Social Development Canada.
64. Torjman, S. (2005). Policy dialogue. Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
65. Torjman, S. (2006). There's madness to this method. Ottawa, ON: Caledon Institute of Social Policy.
66. Torres, R.T., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, and future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 387-395. (Pubitemid 33387820)
67. Treasury Board Secretariat Centre of Excellence for Evaluation. (2004). Policy evaluation system for the government of Canada: draft-edited version. Ottawa, ON: Author.
68. Treasury Board Secretariat. (2009). Policy on evaluation. Ottawa, ON: Author.
69. United Way of Greater Toronto and Canadian Council on Social Development. 2004. Poverty by postal code. Toronto, ON: Author.
70. Voyer, R., & Franke, S. (2006). Social capital as a public policy tool: Conclusions from the PRI Project. Ottawa, ON: Policy Research Initiative.
71. Weiss, C.H. (1995). Nothing as practical as good theory: Exploring theory-based evaluation for comprehensive community initiatives for children and families. In J.P. Connell, A.C. Kubish, L.B. Schorr, & C.H. Weiss (Eds.), New approaches to evaluating community initiatives: Concepts, methods, and contexts. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
72. Weiss, C.H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
73. Yalnizyan, A. (2007). The rich and the rest of us: The changing face of Canada's growing gap. Ottawa, ON: Centre for Policy Alternatives.