The editorial team of the Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation (CJPE) is pleased to announce that volume 32(1) is now published on-line. In conformity with the CES embargo policy, this issue is reserved for CES members until three more issues are added. Reproduced below is the introduction to the spring 2017 issue.

Articles and practice notes in this issue of the Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation (CJPE) cast light on the value of empirical work in advancing knowledge about evaluation practice. It is rewarding to see the quantity and quality of evidence informed and evidence-informing evaluation work being put forward for peer-reviewed publication. As befits a regular issue of CJPE, this issue covers a wide range of topics. Readers will certainly find at least one topic that will contribute to their own thinking and practice.

Moving from the more theoretical to the more practical, the opening research article by Suman Budhwani offers a critical review of contribution analysis, highlighting some methodological challenges and suggesting potential adaptations. Jean Marie Buregeya, Astrid Brousselle, Kareen Nour, and Christine Loignon use contribution analysis to assess the use of health impact assessment impacts at the municipal level. Their piece exemplifies "de-siloing" by bringing evaluation-field thinking to bear on an evaluative tool developed for the healthy public policy field. The evaluation of advocacy has been drawing increasing attention. Juniper Glass describes the results of a survey on evaluations of advocacy for systems and policy change and provides new insights to guide future evaluations of advocacy work. The last two articles (Veillette-Bourbeau, Otis, Blais, Rousseau, & Wainberg and LeClair, Paquette, & Letarte) focus on evaluations of implementation highlighting stakeholder roles and issues concerning the fidelity of implementation.

Three research and practice notes demonstrate how thoughtful evaluators have addressed challenges in particular evaluation situations. Robert K. D. Mclean and colleagues outline how the design of an evaluation governance structure has helped them to overcome the persistent challenge that we all face in producing an evaluation that is both independent and inclusionary. Bringing to the surface an underlying issue that is less discussed, Vivien Runnels, Caroline Andrew, and Jennifer Rae draw our attention to the challenge of sustaining evaluation interest in a partnership-led community program and propose steps to addressing it. Finally, Ouimet and Morin outline how evaluation can enhance the practices of social service organizations by making them more consistent with scientific knowledge.

With such a wide range of topics and such thoughtful research and analysis, readers will surely find themselves browsing through many of the articles and delving into at least one, or two, or three. Remember, you can use our online discussion board to share your thoughts.

Robert Schwartz
Editor-in-chief