Publications from ODSW Social Insights: Letters by DSW (Vol 1) | Page 109
Evaluation, Contribution and Attribution
terms are not used systematically. For example, some people use the term
attribution to imply the change is 100% caused by the intervention while
others use it as a precise measure of the degree to which the intervention has
contributed to the change, assuming that they are in the first place able to
describe the behavioural change.
But what about other contributory factors that support the change? So
some would prefer to use contribution as the main model for understanding
causation which they argue better reflects the complexity of the real world.
The majority of evaluators and practitioners in the social service field favour
understanding contribution and would advise against measuring attribution.
(Many pitches to donors and funders however continue to root for attribution.)
Evaluation and Causality
All said and done, it is worth examining causality in evaluations despite the
difficulties of operating in a complex environment. So how do we examine?
One way is to determine probable causality by looking at the different
types of interactions and predicating with assumptions. For example, we
know with some certainty that it is the full combination of good curriculum
program design, quality of staff implementation and the nature and length
of intervention that determines results. Each on its own will not produce the
desired outcome. Each of these factors should be determined by learning
from research and what is already known. The whole process needs to be
rigorous and well debated. (The common mistake is to think that only one of
the 3 factors is sufficient when what is required is to examine the interaction
among the 3 factors to determine what might be the optimal calibration.
Questions that need to be examined would be about the type of program
design, the amount and type of training for staff and the length of intervention.)
To recap, the authenticity of a program depends on 3 elements and how
closely the implementation follows what has been agreed to in (i) con tent in
the design; (ii) dosage standards; and (iii) delivery approach.
108