The evaluator as program consultant

This paper presents a model for the role of the evaluator in which the evaluator acts as a Program Consultant who operates in three domains: Program Development, Planned Change, and Evaluation Technology. This permits the performance of evaluations that have greater validity and utility. The model is presented both from the theoretical perspective of linkage and from the context of the evaluation of a Case Management program operated by a Community Action Agency. Each of the domains is discussed with examples from the Case Management Evaluation. The paper concludes with a discussion of the contexts in which the model is best applied.     

An evaluator of the future

For the evaluator who is part of the management of a human service organization, future expectations will be more demanding than at present. Operating staff, managers, and funders will already be familiar with the methods and the usefulness of capable program evaluation. Improved information tools will help the evaluator meet this challenge, by keeping the organization visible and manageable. A more fundamental change will be an improved “language of accountability”. Program standards, accreditation, and review now focus on structure and process characteristics. What is emerging is a growing consensus on definitions of client problems and program objectives in relation to these problems. This consensus spurs psychometric research on measures of problems and of the attainment of program objectives. Dependable, standard measures and meaningful comparative data will make the evaluation of program effectiveness possible.     

The operation was a success but the patient died: A critique of “the implementation and evaluation of a problem-solving training program for adolescents”

This critique examines George S. Tellado's account of his evaluation of a problem-solving program for adolescents in a public junior high school in Pennsylvania. The program was apparently successful (i.e., it was shown by the evaluation to improve students' problem-solving capacities), and the evaluation was, for the most part, technically sound, but the program did not survive. This critique suggests that by examining the problem-solving program as an organizational change intervention, several problems can be uncovered regarding the program's design, implementation, evaluation, and institutionalization. In particular, it appears that the school system's staff did not have sufficient ownership of the program to understand it or to wish to carry it on after the program's originator and evaluator were no longer present. This article addresses these problems in detail and recommends techniques from the field of organizational change consultation to increase the likelihood that such programs will live on into the future.     

Legislative history and evaluation

Legislative histories can be done with those evaluative studies which are based on programs which have a history in the legislature. ESEA Title I, Title IV, and the Title I Technical Assistance Centers are examples of programs which have their direct source in federal legislation. The evaluator could ask whether the intent (aims and objectives) of a program is the same as the intent of the legislation or could ask whether the outcomes of a program were the same as those intended by the legislature. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the reader to the doing of legislative history in an evaluation study. The paper introduces the reader to five major sources for legislative history. The paper then discusses seven acceptable sources of information. Following this is a five-step guide to doing a legislative history.     

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.     

Ethical dilemmas in evaluating programs with family court related clients

Two ethical dilemmas are discussed; breaching client confidentiality in order to intervene in the client's illegal behavior, and defining the role of evaluator as expert witness. The evaluation context concerns a combined program development and evaluation project with clients involved in family court proceedings for child abuse or neglect. Different perspectives, approaches, and experiences in resolving each dilemma are reviewed. The conclusion argues that approaches to ethical dilemmas in evaluation projects must go beyond techniques to disguise data, to include an assessment of the values and value commitments connected to the different roles an evaluator must perform.     

Expanding evaluator competency research: Exploring competencies for program evaluation using the context of non-formal education

The overlap of competencies between general program evaluation and specific contexts or content will always be reality because evaluators may need unique competencies to answer evaluation questions for particular contexts or content areas. Limited research exists that explores the essential competencies required by professionals who use evaluation as one part of their job portfolio, which leaves unanswered questions regarding the applicability of current evaluator competency models in such settings. We used a modified three-round Delphi technique to identify evaluator competencies for non-formal educators in Cooperative Extension (CE). Our panelists identified 36 competencies in the non-formal educational programming context for CE educators that they considered important to be included in evaluation capacity building efforts. We categorized our 36 identified competencies from the Delphi study into the five competency domains proposed by the American Evaluation Association. Our findings provide information to help guide professional development among non-formal educators related to program evaluation.     

Collaborative evaluation of a high school prevention curriculum: How methods of collaborative evaluation enhanced a randomized control trial to inform program improvement

Blending high-quality and rigorous research with pure evaluation practice can often be best accomplished through thoughtful collaboration. The evaluation of a high school drug prevention program (All Stars Senior) is an example of how perceived competing purposes and methodologies can coexist to investigate formative and summative outcome variables that can be used for program improvement. Throughout this project there were many examples of client learning from evaluator and evaluator learning from client. This article presents convincing evidence that collaborative evaluation can improve the design, implementation, and findings of the randomized control trial. Throughout this paper, we discuss many examples of good science, good evaluation, and other practical benefits of practicing collaborative evaluation. Ultimately, the authors created the term pre-formative evaluation to describe the period prior to data collection and before program implementation, when collaborative evaluation can inform program improvement.     

Lessons learned using a values-engaged approach to attend to culture,diversity, and equity in a STEM program evaluation

Evaluation must attend meaningfully and respectfully to issues of culture, race, diversity, power, and equity. This attention is especially critical within the evaluation of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) educational programming, which has an explicit agenda of broadening participation. The purpose of this article is to report lessons learned from the implementation of a values-engaged, educative (Greene et al., 2006) evaluation within a multi-year STEM education program setting. This meta-evaluation employed a case study design using data from evaluator weekly systematic reflections, review of evaluation and program artifacts, stakeholder interviews, and peer review and assessment. The main findings from this study are (a) explicit attention to culture, diversity, and equity was initially challenged by organizational culture and under-developed evaluator–stakeholder professional relationship and (b) evidence of successful engagement of culture, diversity, and equity emerged in formal evaluation criteria and documents, and informal dialogue and discussion with stakeholders. The paper concludes with lessons learned and implications for practice.     

Changing stakeholder needs and changing evaluator roles: the Central Valley Partnership of the James Irvine foundation

This case describes the changing roles of an evaluator as the program he was evaluating changed and developed, and as the needs of his client and primary intended users changed over time. The focus in this case is on the relationship between the external evaluator and the staff of a philanthropic foundation as a major initiative unfolded. The focus of the evaluation was learning and improvement, and as the evaluator developed recommendations for organizational capacity-building, he was commissioned by the foundation to implement his own recommendations, a form of developmental evaluation. The case explores the dynamics and challenges of such an arrangement and relationship. Those involved have agreed to have their real names used because this is a highly visible initiative and attempting to disguise the foundation and key players might undermine, in this instance, the authenticity of the case. The initiative that is the focus of the case is the Central Valley Partnership of The James Irvine Foundation headquartered in San Francisco.     

Dissemination and implementation science in program evaluation: A telemental health clinical consultation case example

Increased attention has been placed on evaluating the extent to which clinical programs that support the behavioral health needs of youth have effective processes and result in improved patient outcomes. Several theoretical frameworks from dissemination and implementation (D&I) science have been put forth to guide the evaluation of behavioral health program implemented in the context of real-world settings. Although a strong rationale for the integration of D&I science in program evaluation exists, few examples exist available to guide the evaluator in integrating D&I science in the planning and execution of evaluation activities.This paper seeks to inform program evaluation efforts by outlining two D&I frameworks and describing their integration in program evaluation design. Specifically, this paper seeks to support evaluation efforts by illustrating the use of these frameworks via a case example of a telemental health consultation program in pediatric primary care designed to improve access to behavioral health care for children and adolescents in rural settings. Lessons learned from this effort, as well as recommendations regarding the future evaluation of programs using D&I science to support behavioral health care in community-based settings are discussed.     

Using performance standards to evaluate social programs with incomplete outcome data. General issues and application to a higher education block grant program

The idea of program evaluation is both simple and appealing. Program outcomes are measured and compared to some minimum performance standard or threshold. In practice, however, evaluation is difficult. Two fundamental problems of outcome measurement must be addressed. The first, which we call the problem of auxiliary outcomes, is that we do not observe outcome of interest. The second, which we call the problem of counterfactual outcomes, is that we do not observe the threshold standard. This article examines how performance standard should be set and applied in the face of these problems in measuring outcomes. The central message is that the proper way to implement standards varies with the prior information an evaluator can credibly bring to bear to compensate for incomplete outcome data. By combining available data with credible assumptions on treatments and outcomes, the performance of a program may be deemed acceptable, unacceptable, or indeterminate.     

Conflict of interest in the evaluation and dissemination of "model" school-based drug and violence prevention programs

Conflict of interest refers to a set of conditions in which professional judgment concerning the validity of research might be influenced by a secondary competing interest. The competing interest that has received most attention in the literature addressing the prevalence and effects of such conflicts on the practice of empirical research has been that of financial relationships between investigators and research sponsors. The potential for conflicts of interest to arise in the evaluation of drug prevention programs was raised by Moskowitz in this journal in 1993, but to date there has been no attempt made to estimate the scope of this problem. The present study addressed this issue using a sample of “model” school-based drug and violence prevention interventions by first, identifying the types or relationships that exist between program developers and program distributors, and, second, by assessing how many of the evaluations of these programs published in peer-reviewed journals had been conducted by the developers of the programs compared to independent evaluation teams. The data presented indicate that there are relatively few published evaluations that do not involve program developers and that there are few instances in which there is complete separation between the program developer and program distributor. Using the open systems model of the Institute of Medicine Committee on Research Integrity as a framework, it is argued that the culture and norms of the program developer and those of the program evaluator are fundamentally distinct and therefore failure to separate these roles produces high potential for conflict of interest to arise.     

Design of a collaborative monitoring and evaluation system for a community-based nutrition project in rural Bangladesh

Poor diet and undernutrition are common among children living in Bangladesh. To promote appropriate complementary feeding of young children, an economic development (ED) program involving income-generating asset transfer was implemented alongside a social and behavior change (SBC) program. This paper introduces a collaborative monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system in which diverse collaborators (“research group”, “implementation team”, and “coordinators”) facilitate M&E data acquisition by leveraging their comparative advantages. The implementation team built a monitoring system to track the ED (n = 2960) and SBC participants (n=∼10,000) over 12 months. Based on the baseline design and the monitoring records, the collaborators planned an impact evaluation introducing a quasi-experimental design using two cross-sectional surveys and a prospective cohort survey of child feeding and nutritional status. Using various data sources generated from the M&E system, the collaborators will also reveal the program impact pathway through which each intervention component is delivered, received, and utilized alongside the context-specific facilitators and barriers, including the programs’ uptake. The collaborative M&E system enables the sharing of program goals, strengthens collaborators' commitment to the program, and extends the understanding of the program's progress and evaluation activities.     

Are cost-inclusive evaluations worth the effort?

Relative costs are as important as relative effectiveness when choosing between program alternatives or among a set of programs competing for scarce funds. Nevertheless, the number of cost-inclusive evaluations remains comparatively small. This article presents the results of three first-time cost-inclusive evaluations each performed by an experienced evaluator. Each evaluator performed a different type of cost-inclusive evaluation using different tobacco control programs as examples: "standard" cost-effectiveness analysis, threshold or break-even analysis, and a simulation model. Results are presented in terms of the challenges faced, and informational and insight benefits gained, as well as in terms of program cost-effectiveness. All three evaluators agreed that the benefits from performing cost-inclusive evaluations are well worth time and effort involved. They also found that this type of evaluation provides abundant information that can be used to improve program effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.     

Professionalization of evaluative research: Conflict as a sign of health

Morell and Flaherty (1978) present arguments about the current status of evaluative research as a profession. This paper contains a critique, using a process model of professional development, of the perspectives employed by Morell and Flaherty. Issues discussed are the nature and substance of conflicts in evaluative research, including conflicts over methodological perspectives, the role of the evaluator in program planning, and the appropriate uses and users of evaluative information. The paper concludes with a discussion of the needs within the profession of evaluative research if it is to remain viable and responsive to change.     

Monitoring and evaluation design of Malawi’s Right Foods at the Right Time nutrition program

Child stunting is a public health problem in Malawi. In 2014, the Government of Malawi launched the Right Foods at the Right Time (RFRT) program in Ntchisi district delivering nutrition social and behavior change communication, a small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplement to children 6–23 months, and nutrition sensitive activities. Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems are key aspects of successful program implementation. We describe these and the methodology for an impact evaluation that was conducted for this program. Two monitoring systems using traditional and electronic platforms were established to register and track program delivery and processes including number of eligible beneficiaries, worker performance, program participation, and to monitor input, output, and outcome indicators. The impact evaluation used comparative cross-sectional and longitudinal designs to assess impact on anthropometric and infant and young child feeding outcomes. Three cross-sectional surveys (base-, mid-, and end-line) and two longitudinal cohorts of children followed in 6-month intervals from 6 to 24 months of age, were conducted in sampled households in the program and a neighboring comparison district. Additional M&E included qualitative studies, a process evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness study. The current paper describes lessons from this program’s M&E, and demonstrates how multiple implementation research activities can inform course-correction and program scale-up.     

Resolving conflicting demands on evaluation: A test demonstration of videotex for farmers

Evaluating an innovation for federal, state, and local policymakers and program managers alike entails conflicting demands on the evaluation study. Policymakers at federal, state, and local levels are best assisted by impact evaluations, whereas state and local program managers are best assisted by process evaluations. In-house evaluators often have an advantage in conducting process evaluations; external evaluators generally have an advantage in conducting impact evaluations. A cost-effective approach may be to combine in-house process evaluation and external impact evaluation. This dual approach was found to reduce conflicting demands on the evaluation of an experimental videotex system for agricultural producers.     

Revisiting a theory of negotiation: the utility of Markiewicz (2005) proposed six principles

People invited to participate in an evaluation process will inevitably come from a variety of personal backgrounds and hold different views based on their own lived experience. However, evaluators are in a privileged position because they have access to information from a wide range of sources and can play an important role in helping stakeholders to hear and appreciate one another's opinions and ideas. Indeed, in some cases a difference in perspective can be utilised by an evaluator to engage key stakeholders in fruitful discussion that can add value to the evaluation outcome. In other instances the evaluator finds that the task of facilitating positive interaction between multiple stakeholders is just ‘an uphill battle’ and so conflict, rather than consensus, occurs as the evaluation findings emerge and are debated.As noted by Owen [(2006) Program evaluation: Forms and approaches (3rd ed.). St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin] and other eminent evaluators before him [Fetterman, D. M. (1996). Empowerment evaluation: An introduction to theory and practice. In D. M. Fetterman, S. J. Kaftarian, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability (pp. 3–46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; Stake, R. A. (1983). Stakeholder influence in the evaluation of cities-in-schools. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 17, 15–30], conflict in an evaluation process is not unexpected. The challenge is for evaluators to facilitate dialogue between people who hold strongly opposing views, with the aim of helping them to achieve a common understanding of the best way forward. However, this does not imply that consensus will be reached [Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage]. What is essential is that the evaluator assists the various stakeholders to recognise and accept their differences and be willing to move on.But the problem is that evaluators are not necessarily equipped with the technical or personal skills required for effective negotiation. In addition, the time and effort that are required to undertake this mediating role are often not sufficiently understood by those who commission a review. With such issues in mind Markiewicz, A. [(2005). A balancing act: Resolving multiple stakeholder interests in program evaluation. Evaluation Journal of Australasia, 4(1–2), 13–21] has proposed six principles upon which to build a case for negotiation to be integrated into the evaluation process. This paper critiques each of these principles in the context of an evaluation undertaken of a youth program. In doing so it challenges the view that stakeholder consensus is always possible if program improvement is to be achieved. This has led to some refinement and further extension of the proposed theory of negotiation that is seen to be instrumental to the role of an evaluator.