

 Evaluators
are not only faced with
methodological challenges but also ethical
challenges on a daily basis.
 Ethics
in program evaluation refers to
insuring that the actions of the program
evaluator are in no way causing harm or
potential harm to program participants,
vested stakeholders, or the greater
community
 Established
in 1975 the Joint Standards
Committee was created to develop a set of
standards to ensure the highest quality of
program evaluation in the educational
setting.
 The
Joint Standards Committee is made up
of several organizations. The American
Evaluation Association (AEA) is one of those
contributing organizations and sends
delegates to Joint Standards Committee
meetings.

The standards are broken down into five main areas:
1) Utility
2) Feasibility
3) Propriety
4) Accuracy, and
5) Evaluation accountability.
Use the link below to access the standards:
American Evaluation Association. (n.d.). Programme
Accountability Standards. Retrieved from
http://www.eval.org/p/cm/ld/fid=103
 The
purpose of these standards is to
increase the likelihood that stakeholders
would find both the process and product
associated with the evaluation to be
valuable in nature
 The
purpose of these standards is to ensure
that the evaluation is conducted
accordingly, using appropriate project
management techniques, along with using
resources appropriately.
 These
standards are designed to support
what is fair, legal and right in program
evaluation.
 The
purpose of this standard is to ensure
that evaluations are both dependable and
truthful in their data collection and findings
 These
standards call for both a rigorous
documentation of evaluations and the use of
internal and external meta-evaluations in
order to improve the on-going processes and
products associated with evaluation.
 An
evaluation approach is the process in
which the evaluator goes about collecting
data.
 Objective-based Evaluation
o Most evaluation today is objective-based
o Evaluation objectives are aligned with program
goals
o Typically there are 5- 8 evaluation objectives
o After aligning the evaluation objectives to the
program goals the evaluator sets out to
document the degree to which program goals
have been accomplished.
o Uses evaluation matrixes and logic models
A
very effective tool for evaluators to use
 Provides
a plan or “blueprint” for the
evaluation
A
table where the evaluator delineates the
evaluation objectives, tools, timeline and
stakeholders
A
quantitative delineation of an program
goal.
o Example
• Benchmark: Students who participating in
the after school program will have a 20%
decrease in office referrals each year.
 Allows
for keeping close track of “linkages”
between program goals and outcomes
 However,
this approach could bias
evaluators because program goals are so
clearly defined
 Unorthodox
 Evaluator
 Conducts
approach to program evaluation
does not know the program goals
observations and collects data to
determine what the evaluator thinks are
program goals based on evidence
 Evaluators
not biased by the stated goals of
the program
 Current
emphasis on accountability and
outcomes makes goal free evaluation
difficult to implement and keep program in
compliance with the funding source
 Evaluator
and data collection methods not
driven by objectives but by “burning”
questions.
 These
questions are usually asked by a
decision-making body or administrative
group, not participants or those most
“affected” by the programming.
 CIPP
approach is the most noted decisionbased approach
 This
approach uses both formative and
summative evaluation data through a
prescribed framework.
 Four
steps or phases that guide the
evaluation process: Context, Input, Process
and Product.
 Context
is the first component of the CIPP
model. It this section the evaluator focuses
on studying the context or situation for
which the program will take place.
 What
do teachers and staff think we need to
address this program?
 What
do teachers, staff, and the greater
school community believe is the underlying
elements of students’ behavior issues during
the school day?
 What
is currently not working in our building’s
current student behavior program?
 The
second component of the model is
input. Input allows the evaluator the
opportunity to examine the relationship
between the amount of resources available
(e.g. money, staff, equipment) and the
programs proposed activities.
 The
question that has to be answered at
this juncture is: Will the current
budget/funding support the proposed
activities?
 Process
evaluation is the third component
of the CIPP model. In this component the
question: Are we doing the program as
planned?
 Product
evaluation is the fourth and final
component of the CIPP model.

Product evaluation focuses evaluation efforts
on final outcomes of the program and
determining whether the program met its
stated goals and objectives.
 This
component is primarily summative
evaluation and answers the question:
Was the program successful?
 Evaluator
“teaches” stakeholders to
evaluate the program (or aspects of it ) that
serves them.
 E.g.
students collecting data to evaluate
their after school program (Youth
Participatory Evaluation, Flores, 2008).
 Empowers
 Provides
underrepresented groups
a unique perspective to the data,
program and evaluation process that an
external evaluator would not be able to
“capture”
 Participatory
evaluators may stray from
goals of program or collecting data that is of
critical interest to the funding source
 Participatory
evaluators lack technical
expertise to collect, analyze and interpret
data. Data validity could be comprimised.
 The
evaluator’s role to develop or select the
criteria that will be used to judge the
program or product.
 Sciven
also believed that the purpose of this
approach was to present the evaluation
findings and to let the consumers (as well as
potential consumers) make the final
decision as to use or not use the program or
products.
 More
of an eclectic approach used by
today’s evaluators
 Evaluators
take “bits and pieces” of the
above approaches and use them
appropriately in order to extend and support
quality evaluations for funders, stakeholders,
and the greater community.