Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation of existing programs through a trauma-informed lens, so decisions are based on results rather than assumptions.
What it is
Most programs are not failing in the way people assume. They are delivering something slightly different from what was designed, for reasons nobody has had time to look at. Implementation science is the discipline of closing that gap, and it is where most of our evaluation work starts.
We monitor and evaluate through a trauma-informed lens, which changes what counts as a result. Attendance and completion matter, but so does whether people felt safe enough to keep coming back.
For facilities, we evaluate the setting as a whole: what is working, what is not, and what to fix first. The order matters, because most organizations can only change two or three things at once.
Who it is for
Leaders who need to know whether a program is doing what it was funded to do, in time to change it.
Bodies that need evidence rather than narrative, and want the limitations stated honestly.
Rehabilitation and treatment settings that would rather find the problems themselves first.
What to expect
What decision will this evidence inform. If nothing would change either way, we say so.
Records, observation and conversations with staff and participants, at the times that matter.
What the program says it does, what it actually does, and where the gap opens.
A short written report, ordered by what will move the most with the capacity you have.
[Proof element: one evaluation outcome, stated plainly, with the limitation attached. Owner to supply once results are cleared for publication.]
Bring us a program, a facility or a question a funder has asked you. We will tell you what an evaluation would involve.
