Nov 21, 2018
Dance4Life, an international NGO working with young people on health and promotion of safe sexual choices, wanted to develop their understanding of new implementation and social franchising pilots. RAND Europe delivered a process evaluation that provided evidence on these pilots. The evaluation employed several data collection methods (document review, interviews, surveys and ecological momentary assessments) to provide evidence on the pilots.
Dance4Life is an international initiative working with 15 partner organisations in 13 countries to provide young people with knowledge, skills and confidence to protect their health and promote safe sexual choices, with a particular focus on mobilising young people against the spread of HIV/AIDS. In 2017, Dance4Life developed both a new programme and a new approach to implementing the programme. Dance4Life piloted the new curriculum and organisational set-up from September 2017 to June 2018 in four countries: Ghana, Nepal, Russia and Tanzania.
To develop their understanding of the pilots testing the new programme and its implementation, Dance4Life commissioned RAND Europe to carry out a process evaluation. The process evaluation headline questions were:
These evaluation questions and related sub-questions were addressed through the following data collection methods: (i) data collection with Dance4Life (ongoing calls, meetings, briefings and a document review); (ii) data collection with franchisee organisations (interviews and ecological momentary assessments); and (iii) data collection with Champions4Life (focus groups and surveys).
On the whole, franchisees perceived Dance4Life support as effective. A key limitation in answering this question stemmed from the fact that the financial relationship between Dance4Life and the pilot franchisees was not a 'fully-fledged' social franchise, as Dance4Life was providing financial support to franchisees. That said, franchisees still tried to engage potential funders, but found a key barrier was convincing potential funders about the model and its value for money.
While bearing that in mind, the start-up package and support for implementation appear to be sufficient for the franchisees to implement the model. Contextualisation of the programme was seen as successful overall. Finally, areas for improvement suggested by franchisee and Champion4Life responses include more extensive translation and piloting of the curriculum.
Champions4Life reported that they were effectively supported by franchisees. They had positive feedback about the training and ongoing support, saying it helped them become effective facilitators. In terms of motivation, Champions4Life reported a number of factors, including the stipend they received.
There were a number of areas for improvements to different aspects of the programme that Champion4Life pointed to. For instance, training was not always seen as sufficiently long enough to cover content on SRHR, and did not include specific guidance on managing large groups. In addition, the majority of Champions4Life described challenges with finding sufficient time to deliver sessions and challenges in referring Agents4Life to health services.