Program Development & Evaluation Study Notes

Foundations of Program Development and Evaluation

  • Definition of Program:

    • A sequence of intentional actions and events organized in a manner that results in valued outcomes for a clearly defined audience.
    • A group of related activities intended to achieve one or several related objectives.
    • Key Criteria for a Program:
    • Must be conceptualized and clearly defined.
    • Composed of multiple actions or events that collectively form a whole.
    • Purposeful, carrying explicit expected outcomes.
    • Structured with logical connections connecting activities to outcomes.
    • Planned and intentional rather than ad hoc.

  • Definition of Intervention:

    • A combination of program elements or strategies designed to produce behavior changes among individuals or an entire population.
    • Frequently used interchangeably with the term program, particularly within health, clinical, and educational environments.

  • Typology of Programs:

    • Group of Related Activities: Focused, small-scale engagements (e.g., an after-school STEM program).
    • Small Focused Interventions: Targeted local efforts (e.g., local addiction recovery programs).
    • Organization-Wide Projects: Systems implemented across an entire entity (e.g., the UK Concur travel system).
    • Statewide Initiatives: Broad, state-level policy and educational programs (e.g., statewide teen pregnancy prevention initiatives).
    • National Reforms and Policies: Country-wide structural programs (e.g., No Child Left Behind).
    • International Programs: Global, multi-country initiatives (e.g., Vision 20202020 for global blindness eradication).

  • Program Development Frameworks:

    • A deliberate process through which an organization engages representatives of the public in planning, implementing, and evaluating plans of action to address identified community needs and issues.
    • A continuous series of complex, interrelated processes resulting in the accomplishment of an organization's educational mission and objectives.
    • An ongoing, comprehensive planning process used to establish programs supported by a well-thought-out and documented plan of action.

  • Foundational Definitions of Evaluation:

    • General Evaluation: The determination of the value, nature, character, or quality of something. It represents a fundamental human behavior that can range from informal, impressionistic, and private judgments to thorough, structured, and formal assessments.
    • Program Evaluation: The systematic collection and analysis of information to determine the worth or merit of a curriculum, program, or activity.
    • Uncertainty Reduction: A structured process that creates and synthesizes information intended to reduce the level of uncertainty for stakeholders regarding a given program or policy.
    • Ultimate Purpose: To determine the merit and worth of a program, focusing specifically on its value for a group of people, under a specific set of circumstances, and within a unique context.

  • Distinction Between Program Evaluation and Empirical Research:

    • Primary Purpose:
    • Research: Designed to test theoretical hypotheses and generate universal, generalizable knowledge.
    • Evaluation: Designed to determine the effectiveness or efficiency of a specific program/model and to provide actionable information for program improvement.
    • Origin of Questions:
    • Research: Questions originate from academic scholars within specific academic disciplines.
    • Evaluation: Questions originate from key stakeholders and primary intended users of the findings.
    • Standards of Quality:
    • Research: Quality and significance are judged through peer review within an academic field.
    • Evaluation: Quality and significance are judged by decision-makers and stakeholders who utilize the findings to take action.
    • Ultimate Test of Value:
    • Research: Contribution to the broader body of academic knowledge.
    • Evaluation: Usefulness in improving program effectiveness, efficiency, and decision-making.
    • Methodological Similarities:
    • Both utilize identical study designs: single-sample designs, non-experimental comparison designs, quasi-experimental designs, randomized controlled experimental designs, and qualitative methodologies.
    • Both employ identical data collection instruments: quantitative surveys, structured assessments, qualitative interviews, focus group discussions, document reviews, and historical data extraction.
    • Both prioritize reliability and validity: ensuring outcomes are measured consistently and that observed changes are legitimately attributable to intervention activities.
    • Both utilize identical data analytical techniques: thematic coding, descriptive statistics, inferential tests (tt-tests, ANOVA), and multivariate regressions.

  • Rationale for Conducting Evaluation:

    • Measuring intended and unintended program impacts or effectiveness.
    • Maintaining legal, fiscal, and operational accountability to funders, clients, volunteers, staff, and community members.
    • Identifying operational strengths and weaknesses to continuously improve program delivery.
    • Benchmark-comparing local programs with similar interventions executed elsewhere.
    • Assessing economic efficiency via cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, or return-on-investment analyses.
    • Generating empirical data for promotional, advocacy, and fundraising materials.
    • Determining future strategic directions, including scaling, modifying, or terminating efforts.
    • Fulfilling an ethical obligation: balancing the financial costs of evaluation against the cost of providing direct services, ensuring that resources are not wasted on ineffective programming.

Program Development Models and Public Engagement

  • Core Phases of Program Development:

    • Program development operates as a continuous pipeline categorized into 55 core phases: Plan, Design, Implement, Evaluate, and Report (followed by Use).
    • Program evaluation is embedded directly into every single phase:
    • Plan Phase: Focuses on public engagement, stakeholder involvement, issue identification, needs assessment, and situation analysis.
    • Design Phase: Focuses on program articulation, constructing logic models, establishing indicators, and formulating evaluation objectives.
    • Implement Phase: Focuses on process monitoring, formative evaluation, and tracking fidelity of implementation.
    • Evaluate Phase: Focuses on outcome assessment, summative impact studies, efficiency analysis, and data synthesis.
    • Report Phase: Focuses on tailoring findings, engaging stakeholders, and translating evaluation results into practice and decision-making.

  • Historical and Institutional Program Development Models:

    • Early Years Model: Follows a linear sequence: Analyze situation →\rightarrow Assess needs →\rightarrow Set priorities →\rightarrow Secure resources →\rightarrow Prepare goals and objectives →\rightarrow Write a plan (Plan Review) →\rightarrow Execute projects, activities, and workshops (Do) →\rightarrow Conduct self-evaluations and solicit external feedback.
    • University of Missouri Extension Model: Features cyclical loops connecting Analyze, Evaluate, Develop, Implement, and Design, tied together by continuous cycles of Monitor and Adjust.
    • Penn State Extension Model (77 Steps of Action Planning):
    1. DP: Define the Problem(s).
    2. CAD: Collect & Analyze the Data.
    3. CPP: Clarify and Prioritize the Problem(s).
    4. GS: Write a Goal Statement for Each Solution.
    5. IS: Implement Solutions (The Action Plan).
    6. ME: Monitor and Evaluate.
    7. RS: Restart with a New Problem, or Refine the Old Problem.
    • Rennekamp Model: Integrates Situation Analysis, Priority Setting, Program Design, Program Implementation, Evaluation and Accountability, and Development of Linkages with the Public in a non-linear network.

  • Mechanisms for Engaging and Interacting with the Public:

    • Rationale for Public Linkages:
    • Preserves organizational relevance within changing community landscapes.
    • Establishes and sustains operational partnerships with external agencies.
    • Mitigates organizational blind spots ("we don't know it all, see it all, or have the capacity to do it all").
    • Mobilizes broad-based political and community support while proactively defusing opposition.
    • Cultivates community ownership over proposed solutions and interventions.
    • Provides experiential learning opportunities through collaborative civic partnerships.
    • Formal Public Engagement Mechanisms:
    • Boards, councils, and formal committees.
    • Advisory Committees: Require intentional diversity reflecting the target community, structured terms of service, clear options for involvement, direct personal meeting reminders (letters or personalized emails), a psychological climate conducive to open dialogue, and regular reporting on program achievements back to members.
    • Informal Public Engagement Mechanisms:
    • Conducting routine field visits.
    • Participating in local community events and joining existing community organizations.
    • Engaging in spontaneous, informal conversations in community locations (e.g., local libraries, grocery stores, public parks).
    • Volunteering for local initiatives and collaborating on inter-agency projects.

  • Stakeholder Involvement Dynamics:

    • Stakeholder Identification: Requires determining who is affected by the program, who manages operations, who holds decision-making power, and which groups are historically underserved or voiceless.
    • Functional Roles of Stakeholders: Active participation in issue identification, priority setting, establishing goal frameworks, program design, operational implementation, evaluation planning, data collection, and outcome dissemination.
    • Strategic Benefits: Elevates evaluation credibility, provides contextual depth, ensures program modifications are realistic, builds advocacy coalitions, and secures ongoing funding or regulatory authorization.

Issue Identification, Needs Assessment, and Situation Analysis

  • Foundations of Issue Identification:

    • The structured process of isolating the root causes of systemic community problems and developing structured problem statements and solution plans.
    • Core Questions Guiding Issue Identification:
    • What critical issues currently confront the community?
    • How are these issues systematically identified and prioritized?
    • What mechanisms are required to address these issues effectively?
    • What visible indicators, current crises, deficits, or resource gaps exist?
    • What emerging conditions could escalate into severe future crises?
    • What local community assets or opportunities are currently underutilized?
    • What empirical evidence exists confirming or disproving the issue?
    • Who cares about the issue, and who is directly affected?

  • Needs Assessment Frameworks:

    • Definition: A systematic process used to identify what individuals or communities require where they live, work, or play, with the ultimate objective of applying the findings to design and implement targeted programs.
    • Operational Value: Solves resource allocation dilemmas (matching unlimited human needs with finite time, money, and expertise), clarifies organizational mandates, enhances program accessibility, assesses public opinion on strategic priorities, and builds stakeholder buy-in.
    • Three Core Phases of Needs Assessment:
    • Phase 1: Exploration:
      • Step 1: Define the purpose, parameters (specific target demographic vs. community-wide), potential users, and intended uses of the assessment.
      • Step 2: Identify and aggregate existing internal and external secondary data sources.
      • Step 3: Determine what additional primary data must be collected and select appropriate collection strategies.
    • Phase 2: Assessment:
      • Step 1: Formally collect, clean, analyze, and synthesize primary and secondary data.
      • Step 2: Determine the underlying, root causes of observed trends or deficits (e.g., analyzing whether low farmers' market participation stems from high prices, lack of transportation, or low awareness).
    • Phase 3: Utilization:
      • Step 1: Apply synthesized findings to establish clear program priorities (identifying top tier needs matched to available resources).
      • Step 2: Draft an actionable implementation plan (determining whether to build a new intervention or adapt an existing one).
      • Step 3: Formally communicate findings to key stakeholders, users, and policy-makers (a needs assessment is incomplete until results are actively shared and utilized).

  • Data Collection Methodologies for Needs Assessment:

    • Group Processes (Strategies for involving stakeholders): Advisory committees, organized stakeholder groups, Delphi technique panels, community-wide assemblies.
    • Group Methods (Data collection techniques): Focus groups, quantitative surveys, concept mapping, community listening sessions, structured brainstorming, future wheels.
    • Delphi Technique Implementation Procedure:
    • Definition: An iterative, multi-stage survey methodology designed to solicit consensus opinions from a nominated panel of geographically dispersed experts without direct face-to-face interaction.
    • Step 1: Solicit expert nominations from key stakeholders using purposeful sampling or snowball techniques.
    • Step 2: Formally invite nominated experts, explaining the multi-round process and commitment required.
    • Step 3 (Round 1): Administer an open-ended survey soliciting qualitative baseline issues (e.g., "What is the single greatest issue facing hemp farmers in your county?").
    • Step 4 (Round 2): Synthesize Round 11 qualitative responses into an itemized list; request experts to rank-order the items and provide written justifications for their rankings.
    • Step 5 (Round 3): Provide experts with a statistical summary of Round 22 group rankings along with summarized justifications; request experts to review their previous rankings, re-rank items, and clarify reasons for non-consensus choices.
    • Step 6 (Round 4): Provide a final aggregated summary of group rankings for final review, minor adjustment, and formal panel consensus.
    • Key Methodological Advantages: Guarantees expert anonymity, prevents dominant personalities from hijacking discussions, allows thoughtful reflection over time, and generates participant-driven prioritization.
    • Selection Criteria for Needs Assessment Methods: Driven by secondary data availability and accessibility, target population characteristics, internal organizational resources (money,time,analyticexpertisemoney, time, analytic expertise), partner contributions, and required reporting formats.

  • Situation Analysis:

    • Definition: A comprehensive analysis of a community's internal and external environments—including economic conditions, social trends, capabilities, and physical environments—to identify systemic issues, challenges, and program opportunities.
    • Three Main Sources of Information:
    1. Current Research and Knowledge: Academic literature, empirical evidence, and proven best practices ("what is new or good for people").
    2. Resident Perspectives: Commonly held local knowledge, live observations, and lived experiences emerging through facilitated dialogue.
    3. Existing Secondary Data: Quantitative demographic, economic, and institutional data gathered by external agencies.
    • Facilitated Dialogue: Synthesizes all 33 information streams into a comprehensive picture of community reality, moving beyond surface-level voting to deep contextual understanding.
    • Problem Statement Output: Drafts a rigorous problem statement articulating how the issue manifests, its exact geographic and demographic scope, its severity, its short/long-term impacts, and its verified root causes.

Program Articulation and Logic Models

  • Program Articulation:

    • The operational process of developing a formal plan of action to address an identified need or opportunity.
    • Required Structural Elements of a Program Plan:
    • Situation statement (rigorous problem statement).
    • Narrative of programmatic efforts (action strategy).
    • Resource requirements (staffing, operational budget, physical assets).
    • Explicit program components and operational activities.
    • Underlying assumptions regarding how the intervention triggers change.
    • Characterization of target audience, participants, and stakeholders.
    • Tiered expected outcomes with explicit horizontal/vertical linkages.
    • Environmental and contextual factors influencing implementation.
    • Implementation timeline and operational milestones.

  • Conceptualization of Logic Models:

    • Definition: A visual representation and structured planning tool that charts the flow of resources available for a project, the specific activities executed, and the expected sequence of short-, intermediate-, and long-term results to be evaluated.
    • Alternative Terminology: Termed program theory or a program's theory of action; defined as a plausible, sensible model demonstrating how a program is designed to work.
    • Core Applications: Program planning, guiding continuous program management, framing systematic evaluations, and communicating program rationale to external stakeholders and funders.

  • Essential Components of a Logic Model:

    1. Situation Statement: The explicit background foundation detailing the specific problem, its root causes, affected target groups, relevant stakeholders, and existing empirical research/experience.
    2. Inputs (Resources): Tangible and intangible investments deployed to support the program:
    • Examples: Staff effort, institutional funding, community partners, specialized research expertise, volunteer labor, facilities, software tools, administrative policies, tenure systems, interdisciplinary networks, and access to target populations.
    1. Outputs: The direct products and operational reach generated by the deployed inputs. Divided into two distinct categories:
    • Activities (Processes): The concrete methods, internal tasks, and events executed (e.g., conducting workshops, delivering technical counseling, publishing manuals, hosting field days, running research trials).
    • Participation (Reach): The specific target audiences directly engaged by activities (e.g., number of participants, demographic breakdowns, percentage of target community reached, participant satisfaction metrics).
    1. Outcomes: The sequence of changes, impacts, or benefits resulting directly from program outputs, organized across 33 temporal tiers:
    • Short-Term Outcomes (Initial Learning): Changes in Knowledge, Attitudes (Opinions), Skills, or Aspirations/Motivations (KASA / KOSA) occurring as an immediate result of participation.
    • Intermediate Outcomes (Actions/Behaviors): Changes in practices, adopted behaviors, individual choices, or institutional policies resulting from short-term learning.
    • Long-Term Outcomes (Ultimate Conditions/Impact): Systemic changes in Social, Economic, Civic, or Environmental conditions resulting from sustained action changes across communities or organizations.
    1. Assumptions: The underlying beliefs, core principles, theoretical hypotheses, and ideas held about the program and its participants that dictate programmatic decisions. These should be validated by research and defined prior to implementation.
    2. External Factors: The surrounding systemic milieu in which the program operates that interacts with, influences, or is influenced by the program (e.g., economic shifts, cultural values, climate conditions, political mandates, demographic changes, media influences).

  • Case Study: Rubber-Necked Guinea Fowl (RNGF) Recovery Program:

    • Situation: The rubber-necked guinea fowl (RNGF) population has experienced non-sustainable declines, triggering Endangered status designations by federal and provincial governments. Primary threats include rapid loss of native foraging grassland due to urban development, intensive cattle grazing, and hydroseeding of non-native grass species; loss of large Douglas-fir trees in adjacent forest ecosystems required for roosting/nesting; and illegal poaching. Legislation mandated the formation of a multi-stakeholder recovery team.
    • Affected Groups & Stakeholders: Urban developers, forest companies harvesting within the Interior Douglas-fir (IDF) biogeoclimatic zone, ranchers, hunters, First Nations, municipal governments, regional provincial staff (Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection; Ministry of Forests), fish/game clubs, and research entities.
    • Information Gaps: Optimal density of large Douglas-fir trees to retain; priority native grass species; feasibility of integrating native grasses into commercial hydroseeding mixes.
    • Inputs: Staff time, direct funding, agency partners, university research expertise, volunteer labor.
    • Outputs - Activities: 1010 interactive workshops, 150150 educational publications, 2020 organized field days, and 1010 targeted research projects.
    • Outputs - Participation: 100100 field staff participating in workshops; 2424 forest management professionals participating in field days; 100100 local ranchers attending field days; 1010 graduate research students conducting ecological projects.
    • Short-Term Outcomes:
    • Ranchers gain knowledge regarding optimal grazing management within critical RNGF native grassland habitat.
    • Ranchers develop the aspiration/desire to alter land management practices to conserve RNGF habitat.
    • Urban developers gain knowledge on low-impact development designs that preserve adjacent RNGF habitat.
    • Intermediate Outcomes:
    • Measurable reduction in cattle grazing across critical native grassland foraging areas.
    • Measurable reduction in urban encroachment across critical grassland ecosystems.
    • Enhanced retention of natural RNGF roosting/foraging habitat during urban construction projects.
    • Long-Term Outcomes:
    • Increased legal and physical protection of existing critical native grassland habitats.
    • Net quantitative increase in total suitable, sustainable habitat acreage for the RNGF population.

  • The "If-Then" Logic Chain:

    • If staff time and funding are invested (Inputs), Then field tours on RNGF management will be delivered to landowners (Activities).
    • If field tours are delivered (Activities), Then landowners will acquire knowledge on appropriate land management (Short-Term Outcome).
    • If landowners acquire appropriate knowledge (Short-Term Outcome), Then they will adopt modified land management practices (Intermediate Outcome).
    • If landowners adopt modified practices (Intermediate Outcome), Then total suitable habitat for the RNGF will quantitatively increase (Long-Term Outcome).

  • Quality Criteria for Evaluating Logic Models:

    • Meaningful: Demonstrates clear alignment with actions that are valuable, ethical, and worth doing.
    • Plausible: Formulates a logical, sensible, and cause-and-effect operational pathway.
    • Doable: Operates realistically within available input constraints, timelines, and practical capabilities.
    • Testable: Formulated with sufficient specificity to allow empirical verification and measurement of every link.

  • Implicit vs. Explicit Program Theory:

    • Implicit Program Theory: Unstated, informal, and non-articulated understandings of program mechanics. Often yields competing, unaligned assumptions among team members; must be inferred indirectly from activities.
    • Explicit Program Theory: Formally articulated, systematically documented, and diagrammed theoretical models created prior to or during evaluation. Creates a shared organizational understanding of how activities induce change.

Evaluation Frameworks, Approaches, and Standards

  • Interdisciplinary Nature of Evaluation:

    • Evaluation is a cross-cutting discipline drawing professionals from diverse fields: Education, Economics, Sociology, Psychology, Social Work, Public Health, Statistics, Agriculture, Business Administration, Medicine, Policy Studies, and Computer Science.
    • Evaluators carry distinct disciplinary languages, epistemologies, philosophical perspectives, and preferred methodological frameworks (e.g., quantitative experimenters vs. qualitative evaluators; performance measurement specialists vs. program evaluation scholars).

  • American Evaluation Association (AEA) Guiding Principles (55 Core Principles):

    1. Systematic Inquiry: Evaluators conduct data-based inquiries that are thorough, methodical, and technically sound.
    2. Competence: Evaluators possess and maintain the requisite professional knowledge, skills, and cultural competencies required to execute evaluations effectively.
    3. Integrity: Evaluators behave with honesty, transparency, and integrity throughout the entire evaluation process.
    4. Respect for People: Evaluators respect the security, dignity, self-determination, and diversity of all evaluation respondents and stakeholders.
    5. Common Good and Equity: Evaluators consider the broad public interest, social justice, equity, and the public welfare in their work.

  • Program Evaluation Standards (3030 Standards in 55 Domains):

    • Formulated by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation:
    1. Utility: Ensures that an evaluation will serve the real information needs of intended users.
    2. Feasibility: Ensures that an evaluation will be realistic, prudent, diplomatic, and frugal.
    3. Propriety: Ensures that an evaluation will be conducted legally, ethically, and with due regard for the welfare of those involved and affected.
    4. Accuracy: Ensures that an evaluation will reveal and convey technically adequate and truthful information about the feature determining merit or worth.
    5. Accountability: Mandates adequate documentation of evaluation processes and execution of meta-evaluations to assess the quality of the evaluation itself.

  • Major Evaluation Approaches (Kahan, 2008 & Stufflebeam, 2001):

    • Evaluation Approach Definition: The overarching conceptual methodology and operational mindset applied to design, implement, and utilize an evaluation.
    • Result-Focused Evaluation: Encompasses goal-based evaluation (assessing attainment of pre-set targets), goal-free evaluation (observing all actual outcomes without knowledge of stated goals), combined designs, and theory-based evaluations.
    • Utilization-Focused Evaluation: Specifically structured around the information needs of primary intended users to maximize actual decision-making utility.
    • Appreciative Inquiry: Focuses on identifying and building upon existing strengths, positive exceptions, and successful practices rather than focusing on deficits.
    • Balanced Scorecard: Translates organizational vision into measurable goals across four perspectives: financial, customer, internal operational processes, and organizational growth/learning.
    • Kirkpatrick Four-Level Training Evaluation Framework:
    • Level 1: Reaction: Measures participant satisfaction and immediate response to the training.
    • Level 2: Learning: Measures acquisition of knowledge, skills, or attitudes.
    • Level 3: Behavior: Measures transfer of learning into operational practice/job performance.
    • Level 4: Results: Measures final organizational or systemic impacts resulting from behavioral changes.
    • CIPP Evaluation Model: Evaluates four distinct operational stages:
    • Context: Assesses organizational needs, assets, and baseline conditions to define goals.
    • Input: Assesses alternative strategies, staffing plans, and resource allocations.
    • Process: Assesses day-to-day implementation and operational quality.
    • Product: Assesses outcomes, impact, sustainability, and transportability.
    • Participatory Evaluation: Active, collaborative evaluation conducted jointly by evaluators and community stakeholders to foster shared decision-making, local ownership, and evaluation capacity building.
    • Empowerment Evaluation: The deliberate use of evaluation concepts, techniques, and findings to foster self-determination and continuous self-assessment among program participants.

  • Taxonomy of Core Evaluation Approaches:

    • Objectives-Oriented: Focuses on measuring outcome attainment against preset objectives (Used for measuring program outcomes).
    • Management-Oriented: Focuses on serving the decision-making needs of program managers (Used for continuous operational feedback and program modification).
    • Consumer-Oriented: Focuses on establishing objective product/service quality standards (Used by consumers to make purchasing or adoption choices).
    • Expertise-Oriented: Relies on professional peer review panels and expert judgments (Used to evaluate highly complex, specialized domains).
    • Adversary-Oriented: Uses formal debate and cross-examination presenting opposing pro/con arguments (Used for major policy decisions on program continuation or termination).
    • Participant-Oriented: Centers on the lived experiences and questions of participants across all phases (Used to drive qualitative program improvement and equity).

  • Culturally Responsive Evaluation (CRE):

    • Core Concept: Explicitly centers cultural values, historical contexts, and community beliefs within the evaluation architecture, ensuring historically excluded voices directly shape the inquiry.
    • Six-Step Implementation Protocol:
    • Step 1: Engage Stakeholders: Assess personal evaluator bias and cultural self-awareness; form an advisory committee reflecting community diversity; lay down ground rules ensuring power equity; build baseline evaluation capacity among community members; establish trust.
    • Step 2: Describe the Problem: Validate historical and systemic contexts of the problem; highlight community assets and local expertise; utilize culturally resonant models (e.g., narrative storytelling frameworks).
    • Step 3: Focus Evaluation Design: Ensure evaluation questions reflect stakeholder values; select designs that match cultural context (avoiding inappropriate, standardized instruments in marginalized settings).
    • Step 4: Gather Credible Evidence: Incorporate multiple community perspectives on what constitutes "credible evidence"; select data collection tools tailored to cultural and linguistic distinctions.
    • Step 5: Justify Conclusions: Analyze data through a cultural lens; engage diverse community members in collaborative data interpretation sessions prior to finalizing evaluative judgements.
    • Step 6: Ensure Use and Share Findings: Formulate inclusive recommendations; select community-appropriate messengers to disseminate results; ensure findings lead to local empowerment and action.

  • Deficit-Focused vs. Asset-Based Evaluation Approaches:

    • Deficit-Focused Evaluation: Frame: "What is wrong and how can it be fixed?" Focuses internally on organizational gaps, weaknesses, failures, and community pathology (e.g., viewing low-income students strictly through a lens of academic achievement gaps).
    • Asset-Based Evaluation: Frame: