IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v80y2020ics0149718919304689.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does it make a difference? Evaluation of a Canadian poverty reduction initiative

Author

Listed:
  • Prentice, Dawn
  • Engel, Joyce
  • Boggs, Jeff

Abstract

Program evaluation is an important aspect of any organization. The ability to reflect on past performance and plan for the future is essential to an organization’s health and future growth. This exploratory study is part of a larger program evaluation initiative that examined the efficacy of a regionally based organization that provided funding to community groups to alleviate poverty. The purpose of the study was to explore testimonials provided by participants of the organization’s funded programs, to determine if the participants were satisfied with the programs and the extent to which participants’ perceptions are congruent with the goals of the organization. Content analysis was used to examine 3494 testimonials from 77 different agencies. Three overall themes were determined from the analysis: 1 Developing Social Networks, 2 Learning Comes in Various Forms, and 3 Developing Self-Efficacy. Findings from the testimonials suggest that the benefits of the programs are highly social and that connections with others are important, but also provide rich opportunities for learning new skills and knowledge, as well as gaining confidence and a sense of control. The findings from this analysis support one goal of the organization which is to engage people living in poverty in meaningful ways.

Suggested Citation

  • Prentice, Dawn & Engel, Joyce & Boggs, Jeff, 2020. "Does it make a difference? Evaluation of a Canadian poverty reduction initiative," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:80:y:2020:i:c:s0149718919304689
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718919304689
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101817?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gao, Xingyuan & Shen, Jianping & Wu, Huang & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Evaluating program effects: Conceptualizing and demonstrating a typology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 88-96.
    2. Askelson, Natoshia M. & Golembiewski, Elizabeth H. & Baquero, Barbara & Momany, Elizabeth T. & Friberg, Julia & Montgomery, Doris, 2017. "The importance of matching the evaluation population to the intervention population: Using Medicaid data to reach hard-to-reach intervention populations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 64-71.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jing Ma & Liangwei Yang & Zhineng Hu, 2022. "A Counterfactual Assessment of Poverty Alleviation Sustainability on Multiple Non-equivalent Household Groups," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(5), pages 1975-2000, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wu, Huang & Shen, Jianping & Jones, Jeffrey & Gao, Xingyuan & Zheng, Yunzheng & Krenn, Huilan Y., 2019. "Using logic model and visualization to conduct portfolio evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 69-75.
    2. Jing Ma & Liangwei Yang & Zhineng Hu, 2022. "A Counterfactual Assessment of Poverty Alleviation Sustainability on Multiple Non-equivalent Household Groups," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 41(5), pages 1975-2000, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:80:y:2020:i:c:s0149718919304689. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.