Using multiple lines of evidence and independent teams to enhance the credibility of evaluations

The utilization of evaluation findings is an ongoing issue among evaluators. This article presents an approach to conducting evaluations that can be used to enhance the credibility of findings and to facilitate the production of adequate documentation in support of evaluation findings. The concepts of multiple lines of evidence and the use of independent teams are discussed. Use of this approach is expected to improve the utilization of evaluation findings.Two program evaluations that were undertaken at Canada's federal department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs are presented. To undertake the data collection and analysis, these studies were broken into separate “evaluation modules, ” each one undertaken by an independent team. The teams reported to an in-house study director, responsible for weighing the evidence and findings of each of the teams and writing the final evaluation report.     

Accountability revisited: the arrival of client outcome evaluation

In the past few years, "accountability" for public mental health programs has become differentiated in the minds of not only program evaluators, but also program managers and funders, including state and local-level legislators. Increasingly, these officials are becoming concerned with more than just the numbers and targets of services delivered, and the cost involved, and are looking for evidence of positive outcome or impact on clients to justify program implementation and maintenance. This represents a significant move beyond the two accountability models that most recently seemed to be the focus of most formal accountability efforts--performance measurement and quality assurance. Pressures for implementing these two alternatives seem to have been reduced somewhat by the new federal Administration, but even prior to its advent there had been a rapid escalation in awareness of and concern for client outcome measurement among important audiences, including state and local mental health policy-makers and the U.S. Congress. This presents a major new opportunity and challenge for program evaluators at this new accountability focus continues to gather momentum.     

Non-formal educator use of evaluation results

Increasing demands for accountability in educational programming have resulted in increasing calls for program evaluation in educational organizations. Many organizations include conducting program evaluations as part of the job responsibilities of program staff. Cooperative Extension is a complex organization offering non-formal educational programs through land grant universities. Many Extension services require non-formal educational program evaluations be conducted by field-based Extension educators. Evaluation research has focused primarily on the efforts of professional, external evaluators. The work of program staff with many responsibilities including program evaluation has received little attention. This study examined how field based Extension educators (i.e. program staff) in four Extension services use the results of evaluations of programs that they have conducted themselves. Four types of evaluation use are measured and explored; instrumental use, conceptual use, persuasive use and process use.Results indicate that there are few programmatic changes as a result of evaluation findings among the non-formal educators surveyed in this study. Extension educators tend to use evaluation results to persuade others about the value of their programs and learn from the evaluation process. Evaluation use is driven by accountability measures with very little program improvement use as measured in this study.Practical implications include delineating accountability and program improvement tasks within complex organizations in order to align evaluation efforts and to improve the results of both. There is some evidence that evaluation capacity building efforts may be increasing instrumental use by educators evaluating their own programs.     

Evaluation approaches in mental health: Implications of the new federalism

Since the introduction of federal mental health legislation in 1963, there has been a changing emphasis on evaluation and accountability. With direct federal funding of community mental health services, accountability demands were met through expectations for local agency evaluation activities which were overseen by federal authorities. The advent of the New Federalism and the shift to block grant funding of mental health services to state mental health authorities have shifted responsibility for evaluation to the states and local programs. This paper reviews federal mental health statutes to trace the extent and locus of required evaluation activities and discusses two approaches to carrying out program evaluation: "top-down" where the evaluation topic, method, and data collection are mandated by an administering or funding body; and "bottom-up" approaches where the subject, method of study, and data to be collected are developed in response to a felt need at the local agency level. A case study of each approach as used at the state level in mental health is examined. Based on the literature and the case studies, conclusions are presented on the pro's and con's of each method in meeting accountability demands and the barriers which must be overcome for either method to be successful.     

Evaluation in the community mental health centers program: A bold new reproach?

The Federal Community Mental Health Centers Program (CMHC)-from 1963 to 1981-was heralded as a revolution in mental health care. Championed by many, and severely criticized by others, the actual impact of the program on the nation's mental health remains unclear. The authorization to evaluate the CMHC Program came originally from congressional legislation (PL 90-174), and later from the policies and regulations of NIMH under a series of Federal laws, notably PL 94-63. From 1976-1980, two dominant evaluation strategies were prevalent: funds expended by NIMH each year for studies of CMHC services or program-wide evaluations, and a much larger expenditure by CMHCs to conduct their own, independent evaluations following federal guidelines. As the Center's Program was turned over to the states in the form of block grants (PL 97-35), a group of professionals involved with setting and carrying out federal CMHC evaluation policy of both varieties met in public forum to debate the impact of these two evaluation approaches. While some participants cited gains in evaluation technology and impact upon local management of CMHCs, others found the lack of a coordinated and systematic approach to evaluating the CMHC Program to have been an opportunity missed. The impact of CMHC evaluation efforts are also discussed in terms of their major contribution to the field of evaluation research as a whole.     

The case study evaluation: A means for managing organizational and political tensions

This study of evaluation utilization identified organizational, political, and practical arrangements which facilitated wide use of The Interim Report Evaluation in policy making for California's Early Childhood Education program. In a program fraught by tensions, where evaluations had been political tools, this evaluation was special. The research used a field study approach. Analysis was guided by literature on organizations, policymaking, and evaluation utilization. It identified techniques for maintaining political support, marshalling organizational resources, and designing and disseminating an evaluation that used an ethnographic approach and that was directly applied to policy deliberations. Such techniques have significance when evaluators and researchers need to convince policymakers of their worth. This case study adds to knowledge of the research/policy intersect, on ethnographic evaluation, and on state education policymaking.     

Barriers to the use of program theory

There are numerous advantages to conducting an evaluation that is based on a strong program theory. However, a careful examination of the field of evaluation indicates that few evaluations are theory based. It is suggested that this discrepancy is caused by significant barriers such as cost, knowledge, motivation, and role confusion. Suggestions for increasing the use of program theory include improving our education and training of evaluators, changing journal policies, and augmenting our methodology for theory development.     

Avoiding evaluation cooptation. Lessons from a renal dialysis evaluation.

An evaluation of the impact of terminating contracts to transport low-income patients for renal dialysis demonstrates how evaluators may become apologists for management and conduct studies too narrow for effective decision making. The evaluation found that patients continued to receive treatment; their death rates had not increased. Changes in their economic and emotional status were not studied; consequently, the evaluators erroneously concluded that the clients had not been seriously harmed. The article reviews the process the evaluation used. The authors conclude that to avoid cooptation, evaluators need independent information available through conducting and analyzing pilot studies and meeting with program constituents. To avoid overly narrow studies, the next level of management should participate in their design. To use the information effectively, evaluators need to see themselves as advisors rather than technicians.     

State-level evaluations of school programs funded under the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

Although the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1986 and the 1989 Amendments to the Act require states to evaluate their drug-education programs, no guidelines for conducting these evaluations have been produced, and little has been reported on how the states are conducting such evaluations. In this article, the results of a telephone survey on current state-level efforts to evaluate school programs funded under the Act are reported. Some states report studies of the implementation of the program and some report drug- and alcohol-use surveys. Together, these two types of evaluation efforts form the foundation of an approach for conducting evaluations under the Act. Reasons are presented why experimental and quasi-experimental designs might be inappropriate and impractical for the evaluations, and an evaluation approach linking program implementation findings and drug- and alcohol-use survey results is suggested.     

Evaluation in a down-loaded mental health system.

Speculation that policy and funding shifts in the nation's mental health system would negatively impact program evaluation services in community mental health centers (CMHC) is substantiated. Performance of program evaluation activities was investigated in 71 CMHCs in 15 states over a two-year period. Twenty-five percent of the centers reported cutbacks, including staff attrition and diminished funding devoted to evaluation functions. The majority of centers reported no changes, but many directors representing these centers also indicated that they had never fully developed a capacity for performing evaluations and would cease to devote attention to these activities without available funding. In some centers evaluation functions are being transferred to clinical administrators; integrated into quality assurance activities; performed "as needed' by external consultants; or ignored altogether. Many centers are developing or enhancing a computerized information system to improve internal efficiency and to meet state accountability requirements. The professional issues raised to these trends as well as their implications for federal and state policy are discussed.     

Organizing evaluation to serve the needs of program planners and managers

Evaluation is often both conceptually and functionally separate from program planning and operations management. Though program managers may not see themselves as served well by the work of evaluation staffs, there are a number of potentially beneficial side effects to be realized from close collaboration between program administrators and evaluators. These flow only when the evaluation task is broadly defined and when both administrators and evaluators recognize their interdependence. Particular functional benefits to management from evaluation are described. Characteristics of interorganizational relations which might increase the probability of their attainment are then outlined and discussed.     

Assumptions at the philosophical and programmatic levels in evaluation

Stakeholders and evaluators hold a variety of levels of assumptions at the philosophical, methodological, and programmatic levels. The use of a transformative philosophical framework is presented as a way for evaluators to become more aware of the implications of various assumptions made by themselves and program stakeholders. The argument is examined and demonstrated that evaluators who are aware of the assumptions that underlie their evaluation choices are able to provide useful support for stakeholders in the examination of the assumptions they hold with regard to the nature of the problem being addressed, the program designed to solve the problem, and the approach to evaluation that is appropriate in that context. Such an informed approach has the potential for development of more appropriate and culturally responsive programs being implemented in ways that lead to the desired impacts, as well as to lead to evaluation approaches that support effective solutions to intransigent social problems. These arguments are illustrated through examples of evaluations from multiple sectors; additional challenges are also identified.     

A principles-focused evaluation of community mental health short-term case management

Principles-focused evaluations allow evaluators to appraise each principle that guides an organization or program. This study completed a principles-focused evaluation of a new community mental health intervention called Short Term Case Management (STCM) in Toronto, Canada. STCM is a time limited intervention for clients to address unmet needs and personalized goals over 3 months. Findings showcase that a principles-focused evaluation, assessing whether program principles are guiding, useful, inspiring, developmental and/or evaluable (GUIDE), is a practical formative evaluation approach. Specifically, offering an understanding of a novel intervention, including its key components of assessment and planning, support plan implementation and evaluation and care transitions. Findings also highlight that STCM may work best for those clients ready to participate in achieving their own goals. Future research should explore how best to apply the GUIDE framework to complex interventions, including multiple principles, to increase evaluation feasibility and focus.     

The unique character of involvement in multi-site evaluation settings

As the number of large federal programs increases, so, too, does the need for a more complete understanding of how to conduct evaluations of such complex programs. The research literature has documented the benefits of stakeholder participation in smaller-scale program evaluations. However, given the scope and diversity of projects in multi-site program evaluations, traditional notions of participatory evaluation do not apply. The purpose of this research is to determine the ways in which stakeholders are involved in large-scale, multi-site STEM evaluations. This article describes the findings from a survey of 313 program leaders and evaluators and from follow-up interviews with 12 of these individuals.Findings from this study indicate that attendance at meetings and conferences, planning discussions within the project related to use of the program evaluation, and participation in data collection should be added to the list of activities that foster feelings of evaluation involvement among stakeholders. In addition, perceptions of involvement may vary according to breadth or depth of evaluation activities, but not always both. Overall, this study suggests that despite the contextual challenges of large, multi-site evaluations, it is feasible to build feelings of involvement among stakeholders.     

Ethical problems in program evaluation: Advice for trapped evaluators

This paper argues that ethical problems in program evaluation are increased when conflicting or incompatible evaluation models are applied concurrently. Three models are illustrated: an Amelioration Model, generating better information for a program's own decision makers; an Accountability Model, focusing on public data disclosure and citizen participation in evaluation; and an Advocacy Model, in which the evaluation is designed to advance the program's interests in the competition for resources. Ethical problems inherent in each model, and arising from combining models are presented, along with case examples and discussion. The authors suggest several directions that program evaluators can consider to reduce their vulnerability to ethical problems.     

Systems engineering: A problem-solving approach to improving program performance

Evaluation methodologies have generally emphasized the measurement and assessment of program merit, as reflected by the achievement of program objectives. Less attention has been devoted to analyzing and explaining the reasons for deficient performance and, more importantly, what needs to be modified to improve performance. While evaluators do identify performance problems, the identified problems are not always analyzed. Consequently, the information reported to decision makers may be incomplete, inconclusive, and of limited utility in the decision-making process. This article describes an evaluation methodology based on problem solving techniques which can be effective and efficient in defining and analyzing problems which impair program performance. The model can be applied in evaluations where the purpose is to provide decision makers with information and recommendations to improve program performance and provide an alternative to those evaluation models which emphasize the assessment of program merit. The model also provides a potentially unique cost/benefit methodology for estimating the potential worth of improving program performance (i.e., solving the problem).     

Ten steps to making evaluation matter

This paper proposes ten steps to make evaluations matter. The ten steps are a combination of the usual recommended practice such as developing program theory and implementing rigorous evaluation designs with a stronger focus on more unconventional steps including developing learning frameworks, exploring pathways of evaluation influence, and assessing spread and sustainability. Consideration of these steps can lead to a focused dialogue between program planners and evaluators and can result in more rigorously planned programs. The ten steps can also help in developing and implementing evaluation designs that have greater potential for policy and programmatic influence. The paper argues that there is a need to go beyond a formulaic approach to program evaluation design that often does not address the complexity of the programs. The complexity of the program will need to inform the design of the evaluation. The ten steps that are described in this paper are heavily informed by a Realist approach to evaluation. The Realist approach attempts to understand what is it about a program that makes it work.     

The use of metaevaluation to plan evaluations of conservation programs

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is sponsoring and will be required to evaluate a wide range of conservation programs. The development of evaluation plans for such programs can often be improved by reviewing evaluations that have been done on similar programs. The Residential Conservation Service (RCS), sponsored by DOE, is discussed as an example of how conducting metaevaluations can improve evaluation planning. Many utilities have sponsored programs that are similar to the RCS. A review of the utility program evaluations suggested key methodological issues and data problems that should be considered in the development of an RCS evaluation plan. The implications of these metaevaluation findings for an RCS evaluation plan are discussed.     

Time matters: the potential and pitfalls of using mixed methods approaches in longitudinal program evaluation

While social programs are often assessed using short-term impact studies, longitudinal designs allow evaluators to capture change over time, identify longer-term outcomes, adapt instruments, and better understand participants in transition. A mixed methods design can be critical in understanding these dynamics; yet there is a lack of literature exploring the practical considerations of planning and conducting qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis within longitudinal studies. This paper examines two different mixed methods frameworks used in a 5-year evaluation of three youth entrepreneurship programs in East Africa. We show how the evaluation team dealt with unique challenges across methods and over time, and how the design ultimately facilitated a richer understanding of program impacts and processes. Considerations for conducting this type of study are explored, related to the impact of longevity on analysis and research staff. Successfully using a longitudinal mixed methods approach requires researchers to be strategic and reflexive, and work in close collaboration.     

Reflections on facilitating a participatory community self-evaluation

This paper is a reflective essay about our experience in conducting a participatory, community self-evaluation of a neighborhood revitalization effort in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We took a controversial approach to evaluation by focusing on learning community dialogues as a vehicle for program evaluation. As we implemented our strategy, two sets of contradictions surfaced. The first points to the fundamental differences between conventional and constructivist research paradigms. The second centers around our focus on dialogue as a strategy for evaluation. In response to these contradictions we performed three complementary roles: program evaluator, process consultant, and learning facilitator. We are not implying that we performed an outstanding job in these roles. Rather, this article is our way of taking stock of what we learned about our practice as evaluators and how we may expand our repertoire of skills in the future.