Evaluation at Sunset: Considerations When Evaluating a Program as It Concludes

Beadnell, Blair; Djang, Holly Carmichael; Vanslyke, Jan; Andersen, B. Holt

doi:10.9707/1944-5660.1349

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(4 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Either they focus too much on the implementation process (and ignore the outcome and impact of a policy) or they provide their report too late so that decision-makers are forced to take action without knowing the final result of the review. Beadnell et al (2017) highlight that soft skills like facilitation are equally essential to make sunset reviews work, since these enable to produce rigorous evaluations that work within the timing of sunset legislation.…”

Section: Sunset Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools

Howlett¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dominant focus in agenda setting scholarship on external factors driving governments' agenda can make us overlook that governments also have many formal tools at their disposal to steer and manage their own agenda and timetables. In this chapter we study the agendasetting potential of three such procedural tools, which have thus far only received little attention in prior research: periodic policy reviews, spending reviews, and sunset reviews. We discuss their major attributes, their underpinning rational assumptions, the way how they have been institutionalized and routinized in countries' evaluation systems, and reflect on the conditions that foster or jeopardize their agenda-setting impact. Throughout the chapter, we draw on different empirical examples from various countries. While these tools are very often strongly institutionalized, the actual impact on agenda-setting should generally not be overestimated.

show abstract

Section: Sunset Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools

Howlett¹

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Petrovich (2011) warns of "obsessive measurement disorder" whereby foundations put too much emphasis on funding initiatives with discrete, easily measurable outcomes. This raises questions about whether assessments accurately reflect broader impacts and how to evaluate goals that change over time (Beadnell et al 2017, Gienapp et al 2017. Foundation assessments may focus on measures of social and ecological impacts without adequately linking foundation practices to those impacts.…”

Section: Social and Ecological Impactsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Philanthropic foundations as agents of environmental governance: a research agenda

Betsill

Enrici

Cornu

et al. 2021

Environmental Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…There is a need for much finer‐grained guidance to conduct responsible exits. For many funders, there is still a great deal of uncertainty and lack of planning and learning around exits (Beadnell et al, 2017; Giloth & Gewirtz, 2009), which can lead to irresponsible exit practices where foundations simply do not address or plan appropriately for the exit. Cao Yu et al (2017, p. 64) explains that: “the [exit] process is too often treated as an afterthought, and funders rarely devote enough time to planning for and working through the tensions and issues that arise.” A more comprehensive framework delineating best practices for exiting responsibly in various exit contexts could help funders, grantees and other practitioners think about exits as a priority on par with other parts of their grantmaking strategies.…”

Section: Philanthropic Exitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptualizing responsible exits in conservation philanthropy

Cornu

Gruby

Blackwatters

et al. 2023

Conservat Sci and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation philanthropy has grown significantly in the past decade. As the number of philanthropic-supported conservation initiatives increases, so too will the frequency of exits-the ending of funding relationships. A trend toward "strategic philanthropy," where foundations fund time-limited grants, is already contributing to near-constant exits. We draw attention to exits as a critical and ubiquitous-yet understudied-part of conservation grantmaking processes that can have tremendous impacts on the people and places foundations invest in. This paper begins to address this research gap with the first empirical study of exit processes in the context of ocean conservation philanthropy. We draw on an analysis of interviews and a knowledge co-production workshop with donors representing 36 foundations investing in ocean conservation globally to: (1) develop a conceptual framework that broadens and clarifies definitions of exits and provides a common language to characterize exits along varied dimensions, and (2) derive best practices for exiting responsibly. This paper provides timely guidance for environmental philanthropy broadly, including the need to think about exits early and often as an integral part of the grantmaking strategy. Responsible giving must include responsible exits.

show abstract

Evaluation at Sunset: Considerations When Evaluating a Program as It Concludes

Cited by 4 publications

References 4 publications

The Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools

The Routledge Handbook of Policy Tools

Philanthropic foundations as agents of environmental governance: a research agenda

Conceptualizing responsible exits in conservation philanthropy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About