IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v31y2008i2p209-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When the trivial becomes meaningful: Reflections on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Odendaal, Willem A.
  • Marais, Sandra
  • Munro, Salla
  • van Niekerk, Ashley

Abstract

This paper reflects on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa. The programme, implemented in two low-income communities, focused on the reduction of risks to unintentional childhood injuries. The evaluation comprised a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, including observations in conjunction with an evaluator's journal, diaries kept by the home visitors, interviews and focus group discussions. Short questionnaires were administered to programme staff and home visitors. Caregivers were visited to attain their assessment of visitors and the programme. These methods resulted in a detailed description of implementation processes, but more importantly gave insight into the experiences and perceptions of the social actors, i.e. programme staff, visitors and caregivers. It also offered possible explanations for the difference in the intervention effect between the two sites. Two major challenges to the evaluation were: (i) the power-imbalance between the evaluator and community participants (visitors and caregivers) and (ii) the language- and cultural barriers between evaluator and community participants. The evaluation demonstrated that process information can contribute towards explaining outcome results, but also that active participation from all social actors is a necessary condition if process evaluations are to result in programme improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Odendaal, Willem A. & Marais, Sandra & Munro, Salla & van Niekerk, Ashley, 2008. "When the trivial becomes meaningful: Reflections on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 209-216, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:31:y:2008:i:2:p:209-216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(08)00014-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Cunningham, Louise E. & Michielutte, Robert & Dignan, Mark & Sharp, Penny & Boxley, Jeanne, 2000. "The value of process evaluation in a community-based cancer control program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 13-25, February.
    2. Bouffard, Jeffrey A. & Taxman, Faye S. & Silverman, Rebecca, 2003. "Improving process evaluations of correctional programs by using a comprehensive evaluation methodology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 149-161, May.
    3. Olsen, Odd Einar & Lindoe, Preben, 2004. "Trailing research based evaluation; phases and roles," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 371-380, November.
    4. Butchart, Alexander & Kruger, Johan & Lekoba, Royal, 2000. "Perceptions of injury causes and solutions in a Johannesburg township: implications for prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 331-344, February.
    5. Nichols, Laura, 2002. "Participatory program planning: including program participants and evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-14, February.
    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. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:31:y:2008:i:2:p:209-216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

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

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.