5 |A minimum standard for evaluation The Equality and Human Rights Commission report and unlawful ‘Prejudice behaviour: exploring levers for et al., 2016) applied a set of criteria change’ (Abrams as a method of assessing and scoring the quality of the evaluation processes of 24 different interventions. The scores achieved by the 24 interventions studied ranged from 15 per cent to 71 per cent. The variation in the quality of evaluation processes that were reviewed show just how challenging it can be to undertake a ‘good enough’ evaluation. We have designed these principles following analysis of the barriers and challenges to enable you to achieve that evaluation. By we mean ‘good enough’ ‘good enough’ an evaluation that is proportionate and realistic, but can also provide evidence that is reliable enough for the Commission and others to use to inform their work. Table 1. Eight principles for evaluating anti-prejudice projects Intervention Evaluation Evaluation design design implementation 1. Our decision to make 4. We are clear about the 6. We know how we will an intervention is based nature of the data analyse the data we on a robust assessment required to demonstrate collect to produce and specification of the that we have made a conclusions. need to make an difference. intervention. 7. We know how we will 5. We are clear about the use our conclusions. 2. We are clear about the methods we will employ to difference we wish to collect that data. 8. We have assessed and make through our committed the resources intervention. required to deliver the evaluation. 3. We have reason to believe that the intervention we propose to deliver will produce that difference.
5 |A minimum standard for evaluation The Equality and Human Rights Commission report ‘Prejudice and unlawful behaviour: exploring levers for change’ (Abrams et al., 2016) applied a set of criteria as a method of assessing and scoring the quality of the evaluation processes of 24 different interventions. The scores achieved by the 24 interventions studied ranged from 15 per cent to 71 per cent. The variation in the quality of evaluation processes that were reviewed show just how challenging it can be to undertake a ‘good enough’ evaluation. We have designed these principles following analysis of the barriers and challenges to enable you to achieve that ‘good enough’ evaluation. By ‘good enough’ we mean an evaluation that is proportionate and realistic, but can also provide evidence that is reliable enough for the Commission and others to use to inform their work. Table 1. Eight principles for evaluating anti-prejudice projects Intervention design Evaluation design Evaluation implementation 1. Our decision to make an intervention is based on a robust assessment and specification of the need to make an intervention. 2. We are clear about the difference we wish to make through our intervention. 3. We have reason to believe that the intervention we propose to deliver will produce that difference. 4. We are clear about the nature of the data required to demonstrate that we have made a difference. 5. We are clear about the methods we will employ to collect that data. 6. We know how we will analyse the data we collect to produce conclusions. 7. We know how we will use our conclusions. 8. We have assessed and committed the resources required to deliver the evaluation.
prejudice-unlawful-behaviour-guide-to-evaluation.docx