THE PROGRAM STRUCTURE

hdf
AND CIRCUMSTANCES

EVELYN P. JIMENA
MASTER OF ARTS IN
EDUCATION

Categories of Program Structure and

Circumstances
1. The stage of program development;
2. The administrative and political
context of the program; and
3. The conceptualization and
organizational structure of the
program.

Stage of Program Development and

Related Evaluation Functions
Stage of
Questions
Program
to be
Developmen Asked
t

Evaluation
Function

1. Assessment
of social
problems and
needs
2.
Determination
of goals

Needs
assessment;
problem
description
Needs
assessment;
service needs

3. Design of
program

To what extent
are community
needs and
standards met?
What must be
done to meet
those needs and
standards?
What services
could be used to

Assessment of
program logic

Stage of Program Development and

Related Evaluation Functions
Stage of
Questions
Program
to be
Developmen Asked
t

Evaluation
Function

4. Selection of
alternative

Feasibility
study; formative
evaluation

5. Program
implementation
6. Program
operation

Which of the
possible
program
approaches is
best?
How should the
program be put
into operation?
Is the program
operating as

Implementation
assessment
Process
evaluation;

Stage of Program Development and

Related Evaluation Functions
Stage of
Program
Developmen
t
7. Program
Outcomes

8. Program
efficiency

Questions
to be
Asked

Evaluation
Function

Is the
program
having the
desired
effects?
Are program
effects
attained at a

Outcome
evaluation

Cost-benefit
analysis;
Cost-

Administrative and Political Context

of the Program
o Evaluators are not free to establish
their own definitions of what the
program is about, its goals and
objectives, and what evaluation
questions should be addressed.
o Evaluators work with the evaluation
sponsors, program management, and
other stakeholders to develop
essential background on evaluation.

Administrative and Political Context

of the Program
o Different perspectives from these various
groups are to be expected:
o In most instances, the evaluator will solicit
input from all the major stakeholders and
attempt to incorporate their concerns so that
evaluation will be as inclusive and informative
as possible.
o If significant stakeholders are not ins
substantial agreement about the mission,
goals, or other critical issues of the program,
evaluation design becomes very difficult.

Example: Stakeholder Conflict Over Home Arrest

Program
o There were numerous conflicting goals that we
considered important by different agencies, including
lowering costs and prison diversion, control and
public safety, intermediate punishment and increased
options
for
corrections,
and
treatment
and
rehabilitation. Different stakeholders emphasized
public safety, and still others were mainly concerned
with diverting offenders from prison. Some
implementers stressed the need for control and
discipline for certain dysfunctional individuals,
whereas others focused on rehabilitation and helping
offenders become reintegrated into society. Thus,
there was no common ground for enabling key
policymakers, managers, and staff: to come to an
agreement about which goals should have priority or
what might constitute program improvement.

Administrative and Political Context

of the Program
o The evaluator can attempt to incorporate the
conflicting perspective into design, but this
may not be easy.
o The evaluation sponsors may not be willing to
embrace the inclusion of issues and
perspectives from groups they view as
adversaries.
o These perspective may be so different that
they cannot be readily incorporated into a
single evaluation plan with the time and
resources available.

Administrative and Political Context

of the Program
o Alternatively, the evaluator can plan the
evaluation from the perspective of only
one of the stakeholders (typically the
evaluation sponsor).
o Another approach to situation of conflict is
for the evaluator to design an evaluation
that attempts to facilitate better
understanding among the conflicting
parties about the aspects of the program
at issue.

Administrative and Political Context

of the Program
o Guba and Lincold (1987, 1989, 1994) have argued
that the proper role of the evaluator in a situation
where stakeholder conflict is deep and hostile is to
encourage interpretative dialogue among the
program stakeholders.
o From this perspective, the purpose of an
evaluation is to facilitate negotiations among the
stakeholders
from
which
a
more
shared
construction of the value and social significance of
the program can emerge that still respects the
various ideologies and concerns of the different
stakeholders.

Administrative and Political Context

of the Program
o Finally, evaluators must realize that
responsive evaluation plans, program
stakeholders owe primary allegiance
to their own positions ad political
alignments.

Conceptual and Organizational

Structure of the Program
o Conceptualization of the program or
program theory is a plan of operation, the
logic that connects its activities to the
intended outcomes, and the rationale for
why it does what it does.
o The more explicit and cogent the program
conceptualization, the easier it will be for
the evaluator to identify the program
functions and effects on which the
evaluation should focus.

Conceptual and Organizational

Structure of the Program
o When a program is well established,
everyday
practice
and
routine
operating
procedures
tend
to
dominate, and key stakeholders may
find it difficult to articulate the
underlying program rationale or
agree on any single version of it.

Conceptual and Organizational

Structure of the Program
o At a more concrete level, evaluators
also need to take into consideration the
organizational structure of the program
when planning an evaluation such:
o Program
characteristics
as
multiple
services or multiple target populations
o Distributed service sites or facilities
o Extensive
collaboration
with
other
organizational entities

Conceptual and Organizational

Structure of the Program
o Equally important are the nature and
structure of the particular intervention or
service the program provides.
o The easiest interventions to evaluate are
those that involve discrete, concrete
activities (serving meal to homeless
persons) expected to have relatively
immediate and observable effects (the
beneficiaries of the program are not
hungry).

Conceptual and Organizational

Structure of the Program
o The organizational activities and delivery
systems for such interventions are usually
straightforward (soup kitchen), the service
itself is uncomplicated (hand out meals),
and the outcomes are direct (people eat).
o These features greatly simplify the
evaluation questions likely to be raised, the
data collection required to address them,
and the interpretation of the findings.

Conceptual and Organizational

Structure of the Program
o The most difficult interventions to
evaluate are those that are diffuse in
nature (community organizing), extend
over long time periods (an elementary
school math curriculum), vary widely
across applications (psychotherapy), or
have expected outcomes that are long
term
(preschool
compensatory
education) or indistinct (improved quality
of life).

The Resources Available for the

Evaluation
o Conducting a program evaluation
requires resources of various kinds.
1. Available funding is a critical resource
around which evaluation must be
planned
2. Support from the program
management staff
3. The most precious of all the
resources.. TIME

Thank
you!