Dolor y depresión

According to Fetterman et al. (1996), empowerment evaluation aims to assist program participants evaluate themselves and their program to improve practice and support self- determination which may result in a more collaborative and participatory evaluation when combined with for example existing evaluation. They define it as:

“… the use of evaluation concepts, techniques, and findings to foster improvement and self-determination. It employs both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Although it can be applied to individuals, organizations (…), communities, and societies or cultures, the focus is on programs. Zimmerman´s work on empowerment18

theory provides the theoretical framework for empowerment evaluation.”

(Fetterman et al. 1996, p. 4) Fetterman et al. further state that empowerment evaluation is meant to help people help themselves and improve their programs using a form of self-evaluation and reflection. They act as facilitators while carrying out the evaluation. The emphasis on empowerment evaluation is collaboration between the groups involved and not taken as an individual

18 _{To clearly define empowerment theory, one needs to differentiate between empowering processes and} outcomes. Processes are the ones that an attempt to gain control, obtain needed resources, and critically understand ones social environment are fundamental. The process is empowering if it helps people develop skills so that they can become independent problem solvers and decision makers. Empowerment processes will vary across levels of analysis such as for individuals (to include organizational or community involvement), at organizational level (to include shared leadership and decision making) and at the community level (to include accessible government, media, and other community resources). Empowered outcomes refer to operationalization of empowerment to allow a study of the consequences of citizen attempts to gain greater control in their community or the effects of interventions designed to empower participants. These outcomes also vary across levels of analysis. For individuals, outcomes may include situation specific perceived control, skills, and proactive behaviors. When studying organizations, outcomes might include organizational networks, effective resource acquisition, and influence on policy. At the community level these outcomes may include evidence of pluralism, the existence of organizational coalitions, and accessible community resources (Fetterman 1996, p. 4 & 5).

69

activity. The groups empower themselves often with assistance and through coaching. The process is democratic and participatory allowing an open examination of the issues being addressed. Empowerment evaluation therefore looks at the assessment of a program´s value and worth not as a final result of evaluation but as an ongoing process of program improvement (ibid., 5 & 6). This is because value and worth are not static since for example populations, goals, knowledge about program practices and their value change and external forces are highly unstable.

Through the internalization and institutionalization of self-evaluation, it is possible to develop a dynamic and responsive approach to evaluation in order to address these changes or shifts. Value assessments and the corresponding program improvement plans developed by a group with the help of a trained evaluator go through a cyclical process of reflection and self- evaluation. Through this, program participants learn to continually assess their progress towards goals they have developed for themselves with the aim of reshaping their plans and strategies. In addition, value assessments are highly sensitive to the life cycle of the program or organization. In this case, goals and outcomes are directed towards implementation.

Fetterman et al. conclude that despite that empowerment evaluation and traditional external evaluation are not mutually exclusive even though the former focuses on self-determination and collaboration. He adds that empowerment evaluation produces rich data that enables a more complete external evaluation (Fetterman et al. 1996, p. 6). Empowerment evaluation involves the following 4 steps which are meant to assist in self-evaluation of programs (ibid., p.18):

Step 1: Taking stock or determining where the program stands, including its strengths and weaknesses.

Step 2: Focusing on establishing goals with the aim of project improvement.

Step 3: Developing strategies and helping participants develop their own in order to meet the program´s goals and objectives.

Step 4: Helping program participants determine what evidence is needed in order to document the progress toward meeting their goals in a credible way.

Despite empowerment evaluation gaining popularity in recent times, there has been critique on certain of its aspects. One of these is that it is not easy to differentiate it from other

70

approaches such as those that are participatory. In addition it is not clear how carrying out evaluation in a collaborative way will lead to mainstreamed evaluation, better programs and increased evaluation capacity. As a result it is not clear to know which settings, programs and circumstances are best suited for empowerment evaluation (Miller & Campbell, 2006).

“The centrality of evaluation influence evident in empowerment evaluation is common to a variety of collaborative, participatory, responsive, and utilization-focused evaluation approaches. Emphasis on the development of an organization’s capacity to conduct evaluation and the creation of learning cultures is also a refrain in empowerment evaluation, making it similar to other mainstreaming, capacity- building, and organizational learning efforts in evaluation.”

(Miller & Campbell 2006, p. 298) Secondly it can be applied in many ways and therefore not clear to define it. To address this, principles that guide empowerment evaluation have been presented (Table 4).

Table 4: Principles of empowerment evaluation

71

Thirdly, there is said to be very limited documentation of the systematic use of empowerment evaluation to prove how it works and its success. This is attributed to a lack of a developed operationalization process of the outcome principles to prove these aspects.