Search form

Section 1. A Framework for Program Evaluation: A Gateway to Tools

Tool 1: Tools Related to the Recommended Framework

See the following Community Tool Box sections for additional information.

Image depicting a Framework for Program Evaluation. A large circle with four rings. The outer ring is entitled “Steps in Evaluation.” The next ring lists the steps with arrows in between each, depicting an ongoing flow from one to the next: “Exchange Stakeholders; Describe the Program; Focus the Evaluation Design; Gather Credible Evidence; Justify Conclusions; Ensure Use and Share Lessons Learned.” The next inner ring is entitled “Standards for “Good” Evaluation.” Inside it is the innermost circle divided into four quadrants: “Utility; Feasibility; Propriety; Accuracy.”

 

Engage Stakeholders

To help you understand who stakeholders are:

Understanding Community Leadership, Evaluators, and Funders: What Are Their Interests?

Identifying Targets and Agents of Change: Who Can Benefit and Who Can Help

Identifying Community Assets and Resources

To learn how to involve stakeholders:

Involving Key Influentials in the Initiative

Involving People Most Affected by the Problem

Conducting Focus Groups

To work together with a diverse group:

Training for Conflict Resolution

Encouraging Involvement of Potential Opponents as well as Allies

Describe the Program

To fully understand the need, problem, or goal that the program addresses:

Defining and Analyzing the Problem

Analyzing Community Problems

Conducting Needs Assessment Surveys

Conducting Concerns Surveys

Conducting Public Forums and Listening Sessions

To better explain the activities, components, and elements of the program:

Designing Community Interventions

Understanding Risk and Protective Factors: Their Use in Selecting Potential Targets and Promising Strategies for Interventions

Identifying Strategies and Tactics for Reducing Risks

To be able to describe resources and assets for the program:

Identifying Community Assets and Resources

For examples of logic models:

Our Model of Practice: Building Capacity for Community and System Change

Our Evaluation Model: Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives

To look broadly at your program and its context:

An Overview of Strategic Planning or "VMOSA" (Vision, Mission, Objectives, Strategies, Action Plan)

Understanding and Describing the Community

To modify the program to fit the local context:

Adapting Community Interventions for Different Cultures and Communities

To learn to explain the program to others (and so that they see your point of view):

Reframing the Issue

Focus the Evaluation Design

To clarify the purpose:

Developing an Evaluation Plan

To identify potential users and uses:

Understanding Community Leadership, Evaluators, and Funders: What Are Their Interests?

To clarify evaluation questions:

Developing an Evaluation Plan

For illustrative evaluation questions:

Our Model of Practice: Building Capacity for Community and System Change

For help identifying specific evaluation methods:

Some Methods for Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives

Conducting Interviews

Developing Baseline Measures of Behavior

Obtaining Feedback from Constituents: What Changes are Important and Feasible?

For guidance about making agreements:

Identifying Action Steps in Bringing About Community and System Change

Gather Credible Evidence

For support in implementing specific evaluation methods:

Some Methods for Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives

Conducting Interviews

Developing Baseline Measures of Behavior

Obtaining Feedback from Constituents: What Changes are Important and Feasible?

Justify Conclusions

To see an illustrative process for considering evidence:

Our Model of Practice: Building Capacity for Community and System Change

Ensure use and share lessons learned

To promote the use of what your organization has learned:

Providing Feedback to Improve the Initiative

Conducting a Social Marketing Campaign

Attracting Support for Specific Programs

To share what you have learned with diverse groups:

Making Community Presentations

Communications to Promote Interest

Arranging Celebrations

Tool 2: Evaluation Standards

Use this table to determine how well your evaluation met "good" standards for evaluation.

Standard Did the evaluation meet this standard? (Yes or No) Comments:
Utility Standards    
1. Stakeholder Identification    
2. Evaluator Credibility    
3. Information Scope and Selection    
4. Values Identification    
5. Report Clarity    
6. Report Timeliness and Dissemination    
7. Evaluation Impact    
Feasibility Standards    
1. Practical Procedures    
2. Political Viability    
3. Cost Effectiveness    
Propriety Standards    
1. Service Orientation    
2. Formal Agreements    
3. Rights of Human Subjects    
4. Human Interactions    
5. Complete and Fair Assessment    
6. Disclosure of Findings    
7. Conflict of Interest    
8. Fiscal Responsibility    
Accuracy Standards    
1. Program Documentation    
2. Context Analysis    
3. Described Purposes and Procedures    
4. Defensible Information Sources    
5. Valid Information    
6. Reliable Information    
7. Systematic Information    
8. Analysis of Quantitative Information    
9. Analysis of Qualitative Information    
10. Justified Conclusions    
11. Impartial Reporting    
12. Metaevaluation    

Tool 3: Steps in Evaluation Practice and the Most Relevant Standards

Codes following each standard designate the conceptual group and number of the standard.  U = Utility; F = Feasibility; P = Propriety; A = Accuracy.

Steps Most Relevant Standards
Engage Stakeholders Metaevaluation (A12)
Stakeholder identification (U1)
Evaluator Credibility (U2)
Formal agreements (P2)
Rights of human subjects (P3)
Human Interactions (P4)
Conflict of interest (P7)
Describe the program Complete and fair assessment (P5)
Program documentation (A1)
Context analysis (A2)
Focus the evaluation design Evaluation impact (U7)
Practical procedures (F1)
Political viability (F2)
Cost effectiveness (F3)
Service orientation (P1)
Complete and fair assessment (P5)
Fiscal responsibility (P8)
Described purposes and procedures (A3)
Gather credible evidence Information scope and selection (U3)
Defensible information sources (A4)
Valid information (A5)
Reliable information (A6)
Systematic information (A7)
Justify conclusions Values identification (U4)
Analysis of quantitative information (A8)
Analysis of qualitative information (A9)
Justified conclusions (A10)
Ensure use and share lessons learned Evaluator credibility (U2)
Report clarity (U5)
Report timeliness and dissemination (U6)
Evaluation impact (U7)
Disclosure of findings (P6)
Impartial reporting (A11)