Evaluating Safer Gambling Initiatives: Curiosity and the Messy Middle

Session Title

Session 1-4-C: Lightning Talks

Presentation Type

Lightning Talk

Location

Park MGM, Las Vegas, NV

Start Date

23-5-2023 3:45 PM

End Date

23-5-2023 5:15 PM

Disciplines

Other Social and Behavioral Sciences

Abstract

Abstract

Curiosity is the heartbeat of evaluating safer gambling initiatives. As the expectation for evaluating the impact of safer gambling initiatives grows, one of the main challenges stakeholders face is to avoid reducing evaluation to a performative task. In environments where funding is predicated on “proving it works”, stakeholders may feel reluctant to share evaluation findings that are less than completely positive. The messy middle- where we find the design, implementation, or outcomes of our safer gambling initiatives are less than optimal- is where some of the greatest learning can occur. Recapturing curiosity as the driver for the kind of evaluation questions we ask, the way in which we interpret findings, and the platform for sharing those findings with others, is critical to maintaining the evidence in evidence-informed decision making. The intersection between changing funding environments that reinforce the equivalent of publish or peril and stakeholders leading by example will be highlighted as where the catalyst for meaningful change to the way in which we conduct, use, and share evaluation findings reside.

Word count: 177

A clear statement of the implications/“so what?” (not to exceed 50 words)

This lightning talk will challenge participants to consider how they can embrace the messy middle that evaluation brings to bear and use curiosity as a beacon to shine light on what works, when, for whom, and why.

Word count: 37

Keywords

evaluation, performance and monitoring, outcomes, frameworks

Author Bios

Jess Voll leads Greo’s evaluation team, who help clients foster evaluative thinking, design and implement health promotion initiatives, and measure the impact of their work. She holds a Masters in Public Health, a diploma in Health Services and Policy Research, a certificate in Evaluation, and is a candidate for a Masters in Health Evaluation. She is also a Credentialed Evaluator through the Canadian Evaluation Society.

Funding Sources

There are no funding sources associated with this submission.

Competing Interests

Greo has received funds in the last three years from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Canada), social responsibility arms of Canadian crown corporations with responsibility to conduct and manage gambling, non-profits, charities, and post-secondary institutions (Canada), New Zealand Ministry of Health, regulatory settlement funds (Great Britain), third-sector charities (Great Britain), and other international regulators.

Share

COinS
 
May 23rd, 3:45 PM May 23rd, 5:15 PM

Evaluating Safer Gambling Initiatives: Curiosity and the Messy Middle

Park MGM, Las Vegas, NV

Abstract

Curiosity is the heartbeat of evaluating safer gambling initiatives. As the expectation for evaluating the impact of safer gambling initiatives grows, one of the main challenges stakeholders face is to avoid reducing evaluation to a performative task. In environments where funding is predicated on “proving it works”, stakeholders may feel reluctant to share evaluation findings that are less than completely positive. The messy middle- where we find the design, implementation, or outcomes of our safer gambling initiatives are less than optimal- is where some of the greatest learning can occur. Recapturing curiosity as the driver for the kind of evaluation questions we ask, the way in which we interpret findings, and the platform for sharing those findings with others, is critical to maintaining the evidence in evidence-informed decision making. The intersection between changing funding environments that reinforce the equivalent of publish or peril and stakeholders leading by example will be highlighted as where the catalyst for meaningful change to the way in which we conduct, use, and share evaluation findings reside.

Word count: 177

A clear statement of the implications/“so what?” (not to exceed 50 words)

This lightning talk will challenge participants to consider how they can embrace the messy middle that evaluation brings to bear and use curiosity as a beacon to shine light on what works, when, for whom, and why.

Word count: 37