External evaluation
Type: PDF
Størrelse: 70 KB

The external evaluation is the result of the application of pre-established criteria by one person or team about activities and results of the Project. Through evaluation we expect to do a systematic and objective analysis of phases and results, generated by this Project. This evaluation tries to give a value to the global Project.

The proposal design is base don previous decisions adopted by the Project and take as referents the model CIPP -Context, Input, Process, and Product Evaluations-

The model’s core concepts are denoted by the acronym CIPP, which stands for evaluations of an entity’s context, inputs, processes, and products. Context evaluations assess needs, problems, assets, and opportunities to help decision makers define goals and priorities and help the broader group of users judge goals, priorities, and outcomes. Input evaluations assess alternative approaches, competing action plans, staffing plans, and budgets for their feasibility and potential cost-effectiveness to meet targeted needs and achieve goals. Decision makers use input evaluations in choosing among competing plans, writing funding proposals, allocating resources, assigning staff, scheduling work, and ultimately in helping others judge an effort’s plans and budget. (I see input evaluation as the most neglected, yet critically important type of evaluation)

Process evaluations assess the implementation of plans to help staff carry out activities and later help the broad group of user’s judge program performance and interpret outcomes.

Product evaluations identify and assess outcomes—intended and unintended, short term and long term—both to help a staff keep an enterprise focused on achieving important outcomes and ultimately to help the broader group of users gauge the effort’s success in meeting targeted needs.

In finalizing a summative report, the evaluator refers to the store of context, input, process, and product information and obtains additionally needed information. The evaluator uses this information to address the following retrospective questions: Were important needs addressed? Was the effort guided by a defensible plan and budget? Was the service design executed competently and modified as needed? Did the effort succeed?

EVALUATOR ROLES

Summative Evaluation: Retrospective use of CIPP information to sum up the program's merit,worth, probity, and significance.

CONTEXT

Comparison of goals and priorities to assessed needs, problems, assets, and opportunities.

INPUT

Comparison of the program’s strategy, design, and budget to those of critical competitors and to the targeted needs of beneficiaries.

PROCESS

Full description of the actual process and record of costs. Comparison of the designed and actual processes and costs.

PRODUCT

Comparison of outcomes and side effects to targeted needs and, as feasible, to results of competitive programmes.
Interpretation of results against the effort’s assessed context, inputs, and processes.