Bridging the Gap: Evaluation and Results

Methodology

Evaluation of Bridging the Gap has used a layered evaluation framework to measure the benefits of the project. The framework combines the traditional systematic approach to evaluation, which includes process evaluation of program activity, impact evaluation of short-term objectives and outcome evaluation of long-term aims.

This was integrated with an evaluation of participation effects – using key stakeholder levels of participants, organisations and community. Given the purpose of a CCD project such as Bridging the Gap, it makes sense to measure changes to participants and other stakeholders who may have been affected.

It is important to note that a full outcome evaluation – because of its long-term nature – is beyond the scope of our current evaluation activities, but we were able to see progress towards the long-term aim of arts for social change. Focus was, therefore, on process and impact evaluation.

Prior to administering process and impact surveys, we undertook a formative evaluation component for two reasons: first, to be able to measure the potential effects for each stakeholder level, and second, to help guide our decisions about which process and impact evaluations surveys were the most appropriate to use.

Send us your feedback on the sculpture. Tell us what you think the impact of the sculpture has been, or may continue to be, on the community of Bunbury. Email infodisseminate [dot] net [dot] au with your responses.
 

References
Georgeff, N, Lewis, A & Rosenberg, M, 2009, 'Bridging the gap: towards a framework for evaluating arts and health,' Australasian Journal of ArtsHealth, vol. 1, pp. 31-39.