Tool 1: Tools Related to the Recommended Framework See the following Community Tool Box sections for additional information. 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)
