Evaluation Team

This KnowledgeBase archive includes content and external links that were accurate and relevant as of September 30, 2019.
Extracted from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook this example offers an approach to organizing stakeholders to participate in the evaluation process. In the story, invited stakeholders weren't able to commit the time required to participate as members of the evaluation team, so project leaders developed an alternative arrangement to involve a constituency of "outside" stakeholders in the evaluation process.

Example:
Program staff of a successful long-term initiative focused on heightening public awareness about groundwater quality and drinking water issues created an evaluation team consisting of the project director, key staff members, and the local evaluator. Early in the process of developing an evaluation plan, the team realized that it needed information and input from additional "outside" stakeholders, particularly representatives from local governments, such as staff from the local utilities departments, building departments, planning commissioners, as well as key elected officials. These stakeholders, although not directly involved in the implementation of the project, were critical players in terms of influencing policy related to groundwater quality, as well as increasing awareness and problem solving with the community around decision making that might affect groundwater drinking quality.

These stakeholders also provided a unique perspective to the team. They were going to be the ones most immediately affected by project staff 's work, and were the ones best able to work with project staff to test questions and determine strategic action steps. In addition, the evaluation plan focused primarily on gathering information from these outside stakeholders; therefore, representatives from these groups needed to be a part of the discussions regarding data collection processes and structures. What was the best way to reach local government representatives?RT TWO

Initially, staff decided to expand the primary evaluation team to include representatives from these additional stakeholder groups. However, it quickly became apparent that including everyone would make the evaluation team too large to operate effectively. In addition, calls to these potential representatives revealed another problem. Although many of the stakeholders contacted were interested in participating and providing their input, they were concerned when they learned about the level of effort and time commitment that would be required of them, given their already busy schedules. Being public officials, most of them had many roles to fill, including multiple committee appointments and other meetings, which went beyond their regular work hours. It did not seem feasible that these stakeholders could manage biweekly, or even monthly, evaluation team meetings.

However, instead of giving up and foregoing the important input from these stakeholders (as is often the case with project-level evaluations that involve multiple "outside" stakeholders), project staff decided to create a second ad hoc team made up of approximately 20 representatives from these stakeholder groups. This team was brought together at certain critical points in the process to provide feedback and input to the primary evaluation team. Specifically, they were brought together two to three times per year for roundtable discussions around particular evaluation topics, and to provide input into next steps for the program and its evaluation. An added benefit of these roundtables was that local representatives from multiple communities were able to problem solve together, learn from one another, and create a network of peers around groundwater issues—strengthening the program itself, as well as the evaluation component.

In addition, the primary evaluation team called on five representatives from these outside stakeholder groups on a more frequent basis for input into evaluation and programmatic questions and issues. In this way, the project was able to benefit from input from a wider variety of perspectives, while making participation in the evaluation a manageable process for all those involved.

Source:
W. K. Kellogg Foundation Evaluation Handbook, Chapter Five Planning and Implementing Project Level Evaluation, pgs 48-51

The contents of this website were developed under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education and are intended for general reference purposes only. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education or the Center, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. Some resources on this site require Adobe Acrobat Reader. This website archive includes content and external links that were accurate and relevant as of September 30, 2019.