How did we do? Insights from a CLIMAS pilot evaluation Dan Ferguson, Anne Browning-Aiken, Gregg...
-
Upload
kayla-black -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of How did we do? Insights from a CLIMAS pilot evaluation Dan Ferguson, Anne Browning-Aiken, Gregg...
How did we do? Insights from a CLIMAS pilot
evaluation
Dan Ferguson, Anne Browning-Aiken, Gregg Garfin, Dan McDonald, Jennifer Rice, Marta Stuart
Climate Prediction Application Science Workshop March 7, 2008
Overview
• CLIMAS/RISA• Purpose of the project• Evaluation project team • Process and methods• Who is participating• Research/evaluation questions• Where we are in the process
CLIMAS/RISA
• Climate Assessment for the Southwest (CLIMAS) is one of 8 currently funded Regional Integrated Science and Assessments (RISA) programs
CLIMAS mission/mode
We both do climate research and work iteratively with stakeholders, partners, and collaborators to provide timely, pertinent, and (hopefully) useful information, tools, services (or access to these) about climate to those who need these to make decisions.
CLIMAS team
• Program is 10 years old—cast of characters changes through time
• Currently 10 investigators + affiliate investigators + grad students + core office staff
• HQ at University of Arizona, but currently have investigator (Deborah Bathke) at New Mexico State University
• Highly interdisciplinary: anthropology, climatology, decision-support system development, geography, hydroclimatology, Latin American studies, paleoclimatology, resource economics
Purpose(s) of the evaluation project
Purpose of the evaluation project
• Broad evaluation of the RISA model as expressed by CLIMAS– Not eval. of particular product, info source, etc, but rather
a first crack at an overall evaluation of CLIMAS– Roughly bounded in time—2002-2007
• Looking for key insights about penetration of information; perceived salience, credibility, and legitimacy* of CLIMAS; and changes in knowledge, behavior, understanding as a result of interactions with CLIMAS
*After: Cash, D., W. Clark, et al. (2002). Salience, Credibility, Legitimacy and Boundaries: Linking Research, Assessment and Decision Making. Cambridge, MA, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University: 24 pp.
Purpose of the evaluation project (cont.)
• Input to CLIMAS program manager and investigators
• Input to the Climate Program Office and the other RISAs
• Input to NIDIS as it develops
Evaluation Team
Evaluation team
• Mixed team: – two members directly affiliated with
CLIMAS (Ferguson and Garfin)– four members not previously affiliated
with CLIMAS (Browning-Aiken, McDonald, Rice, Stewart)
Evaluation team roles
• Garfin=‘Encyclopedia of CLIMAS’• Ferguson=lead investigator/coordinator,
but not conducting data collection • Browning-Aiken + Rice=interviews• McDonald=survey• Stewart, Browning-Aiken, Rice=focus
groups
Evaluation methods and team process
Methods
• Survey (online)
• Interviews (primarily telephone)
• Focus groups will follow survey and interviews; FG will be used to probe deeper into issues, ideas that emerge from survey and interview results
Survey• Multiple iterations involving whole team• Piloted survey with ~15 colleagues
– Teased out obvious issues– Included required IRB disclaimer language, but
made access (hid) behind a click
• Used professional web team to develop/build– Very fast turnaround, reliable product, able to
customize and troubleshoot– Helped us understand options, e.g. email login
Team Process
• Develop research questions based on broad strokes of proposal
• Utilize whole team for development of research questions + all data collection instruments– Collaboratively and iteratively develop
and refine data collection instruments=a very good thing
Who is participating?
A sample of organizations with whom we workArizona Department of Environmental Quality
National Agroclimate Information Service Pima Association of Governments
Arizona Department of Transportation
National Climatic Data Center Pima County
Arizona Department of Water Resources
National Drought Mitigation Center Pinal County
Arizona Division of Emergency Management
National Interagency Coordination Center Salt River Project
Arizona State University National Interagency Fire Center San Carlos Apache Tribe
Bureau of Land Management National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service
Sandia National Laboratories
Bureau of Reclamation National Park Service Santa Cruz County
California Department of Water Resources
National Resources Conservation Service Sonoran Institute
Central Arizona Project National Weather Service The Nature Conservancy
Clark County National Wildlife Federation United States Department of Agriculture
Cornell University Navajo Nation United States Geological Survey
Desert Research Institute New Mexico Department of Agriculture University of Arizona
Environmental Defense New Mexico Office of the State Engineer University of California, Irvine
Environmental Protection Agency
New Mexico Rural Water Association University of Montana
Maricopa County New Mexico State University University of New Mexico
Matrix Consulting Group, Inc Northern Arizona University US Fish and Wildlife Service
Mohave County Northwest Interagency Coordination Center
USDA Forest Service
Pacific Institute Western Governors' Association
• Basic stats of evaluation participants– ~150 people will be contacted– Representing > 50
organizations– ~25-35 interviews – ~120 people surveyed
Our spectrum of relationships• Communication: e.g., receive Southwest Climate Outlook, e-
mail updates or other publications; call or e-mail CLIMAS team members with specific questions
• Consultancy: e.g., ask for expert speaker for workshop/meeting; seek consultation on project development
• Partner: e.g., co-sponsor an event; been invited to speak at a meeting or workshop
• Collaboration: e.g., ongoing or long-lasting research collaborations; long-term engagement to address a particular issue
Research Questions
Research/evaluation questions
• Is CLIMAS achieving the overall RISA goals of being responsive, stakeholder-oriented, and use-inspired?
• Is CLIMAS perceived as salient, credible and legitimate?
Research/evaluation questions
• Is CLIMAS perceived by collaborating organizations as a reliable and responsive partner?
• What are the outcomes (short and medium term) that result from interactions with CLIMAS?
• How is CLIMAS accessed and is it reaching populations in need of climate information?
Lessons learned (so far) or what I know today that I
didn’t really know in October but probably should have
Lessons learned so far(common sense warning)
• Try to keep track of your stakeholders• Mixed team (inside/outside program) has worked
out very well• Use whole team to develop/refine research
questions and instruments• Pros for developing web survey interface and
database=major time/headache saver• Take the time to pilot a survey; big return on small
investment• Institutional Review Board, oye• Understand that sometimes “evaluation is
intervention”
Where we are in the process
• Interviews beginning this week
• Survey link is being distributed over the next week
• Focus groups will follow, probably late April/May
Then what?
• White paper aimed at RISA, NIDIS, other programs and organizations grappling with similar issues
• Peer reviewed pub
• Better grip on next steps for ongoing evaluation
Questions?
Dan Ferguson
University of Arizona/CLIMAS
http://www.climas.arizona.edu/