This study evaluates cross-structural approaches (CSAs) for intimate partner and sexual violence.
This study is an evaluability assessment and formative evaluation of Intimate partner violence (IPV)/sexual violence (SV) cross-sectoral approaches (CSA), with a focus on the similarities and differences across colocated models. Findings identified a number of recommended best practices for conducting research and evaluating CSAs and co-located centers. To address capacity, participants recommended developing center-researcher collaborations, creating a position in the center and each partner organization responsible for data and evaluation, and making engagement and participation in research as easy as possible (e.g., using available data whenever possible). Another recommendation was to create buy-in and synergy around research and evaluation by involving centers and partners early in the planning stage and using this time to make collective decisions around common language and data collection practices. Participants also recommended clarity and transparency about evaluation activities, only gathering data necessary to answer the evaluation questions, and sharing findings with partners. In terms of engaging clients in research and evaluation, participants recommended providing flexibility and control over research participation (e.g., use of multiple recruitment strategies with key information, use of multiple data collection strategies, offering options when possible) while maximizing confidentiality and safety, reducing burden, and offering compensation and research supports (e.g., childcare, transportation). The project was comprised of two phases: Evaluability assessment of IPV/SV co-located CSAs. Formative evaluation of IPV/SV co-located CSAs. The research team engaged in three primary data collection activities to document the program theory and logic model of co-located service models and to identify promising strategies for evaluating co-located IPV/SV service models. In total, the team reviewed 199 documents and conducted interviews with 58 affiliates and 30 client-survivors. Following these activities, the research team sought feedback from their Expert Advisory Group (EAG) and partnering sites and used the evaluability assessment findings to develop practice and research materials.