| Summary: | This dissertation reports on a formative evaluation of the initial implementation of the Waves for Change coach training programme. Waves for Change is a NPO that combines the sport of surfing with youth care work (what the organisation terms surf therapy) to provide psychological support to at-risk children. The individuals who provide the support (Coaches) are young adults who are employed and trained by the organisation to become youth care workers. Coaches attend a training programme designed by Waves for Change. There are three Coaching teams to reflect the three target communities of the organisation. The aim of this evaluation was to provide data on its implementation so as to improve its design and delivery. Due to the vulnerable nature of the surf therapy beneficiaries it was crucial for the evaluation to be flexible and to provide management with accurate and rapid feedback. The evaluator conducted a utilization-focused formative evaluation informed by a collaborative developmental approach. This meant that data were collected through well-suited methods throughout the evaluation term (February 2015 - October 2015) and, where appropriate, fed back to management for the purpose of remedying concerns. The Waves for Change programme theory was elicited by the evaluator and depicted in a usable format before its plausibility as well as key assumptions were investigated. The evaluator found the theory to be high in utility and plausibility. Following Chen's (2005) approach to formative evaluation, and in order to determine areas of the Coach Training programme on which the evaluation should focus, the evaluator worked with management to identify components deemed crucial to its delivery. These Crucial Components were identified as: the Implementing Organisation; the Programme Protocol; the Target Population; and Programme Implementation. The evaluator investigated Areas of Focus within each Crucial Component. For the Implementing Organisation component these were: Organisational Structure; Funding and Equipment. For the Programme Protocol component these were: the Coach Pathway, and Content of the programme. For the Target Population component: Eligibility Criteria and Recruitment Strategies; and Barriers to Retention and Strategies to address them, and finally, for the Programme Implementation component the focus was placed on Monitoring of the Coach programme. By the end of the evaluation the programme had shown development in several Areas of Focus. The organisation had addressed gaps in staff roles by employing people in key positions and in doing so had developed its organisational structure and improved its competence and cultural diversity. Funding had increased which meant that service delivery had been guaranteed for the next three years. The Coach pathway had become performance-based and due to retention strategies that now include incentives for improved performance Coaches' compliance and engagement had increased. The new pathway also created exit points for Coaches who were under-performing. Monitoring of the programme had developed in terms of revisions to the monitoring documentation and overall system which had led to improvements in data quality. Areas of concern were equipment and recruitment. An occasional lack of equipment meant that Coaches struggled to deliver services to child beneficiaries. Lax eligibility criteria and recruitment strategies meant that poor quality coaches were employed. This led to underperformance, misconduct and dissatisfaction among some of the Coaches and ultimately meant that four of the Coaches (all of whom were recruited through word-of-mouth) left the programme during the evaluation term. This led to one of the Coaching teams being all-female. Future programming needs to address these two areas very strongly as both could become a threat to the successful implementation of the Coach programme as well as the surf therapy programme. Ongoing monitoring of data quality, compulsory requirements to work with children (e.g., first aid and checking against the Child Protection Register) and levels of coach satisfaction are strongly recommended.
|
|---|
