Data collection methods included semi-structured interviews, focus groups, secondary data analysis, and review of documentary information and records. The qualitative data collection included sampling individuals with different roles and perspectives, at the leadership and management level as well as within different public- and private-sector organizations. The study team conducted interviews with 163 respondents with various OMI roles and across multiple sectors, and analyzed administrative data about more than 2,000 workshop leaders and nearly 130,000 participants.
- OMI Staff
- Research Advisory Group Members
- Curriculum Developers
- Management Staff at Public and Private Agencies
- Community Volunteer Workshop Leaders
- Workshop Leaders at Public and Private Agencies
- Participants in Community-Level Workshops
- Participants in Workshops at Public and Private Agencies
Analysis of Administrative Data
- Number of workshops held
- Number of participants
- Number of workshops led by trained workshop leaders
- Geographic distribution of services
- Participant characteristics
Review of Documents and Records
- Reports on research findings
- Documents prepared for research advisory group meetings
- Recruitment materials (flyers, brochures)
- Curriculum and curriculum adaptations
Collecting data for this evaluation was challenging because there are few contractual obligations between the OMI and the agencies and individuals who voluntarily deliver services. The absence of formal obligations is consistent with the OMIs grassroots approach and reflects the broad support it has enjoyed. However, it also means that neither the OMI nor researchers can prescribe consistent reporting or hold volunteers accountable for providing data.
These factors become evident in any effort to collect rigorous information about OMI workshop activity. The initiative implemented a web-based system for electronically recording information about workshop leaders and participants across all of its sectors. However, the volunteer workshop leaders often do not report consistently about the workshops they have completed. Consistent information about workshop participants is also difficult to obtain. The OMI designed a simple two-page form to be completed by each participant, but not all workshop leaders emphasize the importance of these forms because of privacy concerns or simply because they take too much time away from workshop delivery. Participants often respond to some questions but not others, leaving large amounts of missing data. No identifying information is collected, out of concern for participants confidentiality, so researchers cannot directly seek out participants from past workshops for interviews or focus groups.