Examining the Relationship between Community Participation and Program Outcomes in a Metaevaluation
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: The salience of stakeholder participation in community development is not disputed. However, there is a paucity of evidence that clearly links participation with program outcomes.
Purpose: We examined the link between participation and program outcomes.
Setting: The article discusses data collated from World Vision (WV) program evaluations. WV is a faith based, grass-root community engaging, child focused relief and development organization that works in close to 100 countries to improve and sustain child well-being. Community participation is very central to WV’s program.
Intervention: 92 community development programs evaluated between 2005 and 2010.
Research Design: We used a metaevaluation design (Meta-analysis Summaries [DeCoster, 2004]), which involves identifying the prevalence of certain effects (such as child well-being outcomes) and the strengths of relationships among those effects and certain explanatory variables (such as community participation).
Data Collection and Analysis: A document review tool comprising 327 variables was used to review program design documents and evaluation reports. Each review item generated a score whenever a positive response was checked. The maximum possible score for a program was 200. These scores were used to measure correlations among major variables of participation and program outcomes. After the program documents were reviewed, the data was then manually entered into PASW statistics for analysis.
Findings: Programs that mostly used empowering approaches engaging a higher level of stakeholder participation were more than fifteen times more likely to exhibit improvements in child health, community health, education, and protection outcomes than those that which used direct service delivery (give a fish) approaches engaging less stakeholder participation. Also, participation of vulnerable groups like children and women had a stronger relationship with program outcomes than other forms of participation that did not involve vulnerable groups.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Adatu, F., Odeke, R., Mugenyi, M., Gargioni, G., McCray, E., & Schneider, E. (2003). Implementation of the DOTS strategy for tuberculosis control in rural Kiboga District, Uganda, offering patients the option of treatment supervision in the community, 1998-1999. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, (9)1, 63-71.
Bedelu, M., Ford, N., Hilderbrand, K., & Reuter, H. (2007). Implementing antiretroviral therapy in rural communities: the lusikisiki model of decentralized HIV/AIDS care. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 196(3), 464-468. https://doi.org/10.1086/521114 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/521114
Briggs, D. C. (2005). Meta-Analysis: A case study. Evaluation Review, 29(2), 87-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X04272555 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X04272555
Brandon, P. R., Lineberg, M. A., & Wang, Z. (1993). Involving program beneficiaries in the early stages of evaluation: Issues of consequential validity and influence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 420-428. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015004420 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737015004420
Cullen, A. E., Coryn, C. L. S., & Rugh, J. (2011). The Politics and Consequences of Including Stakeholders in International Development Evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(3), 345-361. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010396076 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214010396076
Góchez, M. (2008). Evaluation Reporte El Alfarero Area Development Programme: Implementation Phase, 2004-2015. El Salvador: World Vision.
Kilpatrick, S., Cheers, B., Gilles, M., Taylor, J. (2009). Boundary crossers, communities, and health: Exploring the role of rural health professionals. Health and Place, 15, 284-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.05.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.05.008
Kironde, S., & Kahirimbanyi, M. (2002). Community participation in primary health care (PHC) programmes: Lessons from tuberculosis treatment delivery in South Africa. African Health Science, 2(1), 16-23.
Lopez-Lee, D. (2002). Indiscriminate data aggregations in meta-analysis: A Cause for concern among policy makers and social scientists. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 520-544. https://doi.org/10.1177/019384102236522 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/019384102236522
Oakley, P. (1992). Community involvement for health development: An examination of critical issues. Geneva: WHO.
O'Gorman, F. (1992). Charity and change: From bandaid to beacon. Melbourne: World Vision Australia.
Preston, R., Waugh, H., Taylor, J and Larkins, S (2009). The benefits of community participation in rural health service development: where is the evidence? The Tenth Rural Health Conference. Cairns, Australia, National Rural Health Association.
Reid J. N. (2000). Community Participation How People Power Brings Sustainable Benefits to Communities, USDA Rural Development Office of Community Development. Retrieved from http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/ezec/Pubs/commparticrept.pdf.
Rhodes, W. (2012). Meta-analysis: An introduction using regression models. Evaluation Review, 36(1), 24-71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X12442673 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X12442673
Schaffer, R. (1991). Balanced participation in development. Tropical Doctor, 21(1991), 73-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/004947559102100212 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/004947559102100212
Sirivong, A., Silphong, B., Simphaly, N., Phayasane, T., Bonouvong, V., & Schelp, F. P. (2003). Advantages of trained TBA and the perception of females and their experiences with reproductive health in two districts of the Luangprabang Province, Lao. Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health, 34(4), 919-28.
Taylor J, Wilkinson D, & Cheers, B. (2008). Working with communities in health and human services. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Weaver, L., & Cousins, J. B. (2004). Unpacking the participatory process. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, (1)1, 19-40. https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v1i1.144 DOI: https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v1i1.144
White, L. T., Archer, D., Aronson, E., Condelli, L., Curbow, B., McLeod, B., Pettigrew, F. T., & Yates, S. (1984). Energy conservation research of California's utilities: A metaevaluation. Evaluation Review, 8(2), 167-186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8400800202 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X8400800202
Wilson, M. (2001). Local health planning to meet the needs of communities. 6th Australian National Rural Health Conference. Canberra 2001.
World Vision El Salvador. (2009). Programme ReeDesign Document, El Alfarero: Phase 1 (2010-2014). El Salvador: World Vision.
World Vision International (WVI). (2009). Important updates: LEAP and child well-being. Retrieved from http://www.transformational-development.org/Ministry/TransDev2.nsf/34874E1F560858F088256F1000603B96/$file/LEAP%20Updates%20-%20LEAP%20and%20Child%20Well-Being.pdf
World Vision International (WVI). (2007). LEAP: Learning through evaluation with accountability & planning: World Vision's framework to design, monitoring, and evaluation (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: WVI.
World Vision International. (2011). World Vision's Development Programme Approach. Retrieved from http://www.transformational-development.org/ministry/transdev2.nsf/Brief_Overview_Development_Programmes.pdf
Zakus, J. & Lysack, C. (1998). Revisiting community participation. Health Policy and Planning, 13(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/13.1.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/13.1.1