In order to help with Week 4, which for some reason is the lowest-scoring assignment, I wanted to highlight the correct way to display your Evaluation Stakeholder Workgroup, Evaluation Methods Grid, and discuss some other components of the coming Week 4 assignment.
For the purpose of the evaluation, do NOT list a generic definition. You are being asked to explain the purpose of the evaluation for your chosen organization. Why does your organization care if an evaluation is being conducted and what benefits may it provide them and their population?
Below is an example you can utilize when adding your content. An efficient ESW should only include 5-7 members total (not including yourself) as each will eventually be assigned evaluation questions to help collect data.
Evaluation Stakeholder Workgroup
Stakeholder Name, Title, and Contact Information (Internal/ External)
Rationale for being part of ESW
Nikia Sankofa, Executive Director of staff team
712 H. St. NE Suite 1738, Washington, DC 20002
773-359-1549
(Internal stakeholder)
The Executive Director leads the staff and has a direct stake in how effective the organization is, and hence would be vested in the overall performance of the organization, such as assessing the USBC’s impact on outcomes.
Amelie Psmythe Seger, Deputy Director of staff team
712 H. St. NE Suite 1738, Washington, DC 20002
773-359-1549
(Internal stakeholder)
The Deputy Director leads the action-based constellation group collaborative and has a stake in what topics they are focused on, and hence would be vested in the evaluation question of how effective the constellation workgroups are.
Emily C. Taylor, MPH, IH-IA, LCCE, CD(DONA)
Board of Directors Chair
712 H. St. NE Suite 1738, Washington, DC 20002
773-359-1549
(Internal stakeholder)
As the chair of the Board of Directors, this position has a key role in the strategic vision of USBC, and as well as financial and legal operations, and would be interested in the evaluation results of outcomes and financial viability.
Cheryl Lebedevitch, Senior Advocacy and Communications Manager
712 H. St. NE Suite 1738, Washington, DC 20002
773-359-1549
This position has a stake in what advocacy efforts are focused on, and hence would be vested in how effective the USBC’s advocacy is, and what future directions to take.
Amy Barron Smolinski, MA, ALC, CLC
Board of Directors Treasurer
712 H. St. NE Suite 1738, Washington, DC 20002
773-359-1549
(Internal stakeholders)
This position has a key role in maintaining the financial viability of USBC, hence would be vested in evaluation findings of the USBC’s revenue stream and expenses.
Camille Abbe, Campaign and Convening Manager
712 H. St. NE Suite 1738, Washington, DC 20002
773-359-1549
This position has a stake in what the content of the conference is and plays a key role in maintaining funding for USBC, and should be vested in the evaluation results of the educational offerings as well as financial viability.
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
1 Michigan Ave. East Battle Creek, MI 49017
(269) 968-1611
(External stakeholder)
They provided a foundation grant as funding, hence they would be interested in how the grant funding is being utilized.
For the “…focus of the evaluation through the lens of the logic model” question you need to explain how a logic model is a necessary tool to make certain the evaluation remains organized. How can an evaluator (you) utilize a logic model to make certain the evaluation researchers and assess the most critical content related to the organization?
For ‘credible data sources’ do not just list the program website and Annual Report. You will need to highlight external sources that can be used to validate the organization’s data. No organization is going to outright say, “we are failing at our mission and are poor at managing money.” This means that you will need to utilize local new outlets (find them and list them) paired with federal financial reports to confirm that the organization is caring for the population claimed and operating effectively.
The Evaluation Methods Grid is also a common area of confusion, to assist a sample is below in addition to the examples provided in the CDC reading.
Evaluation Methods Grid
Evaluation Question
Indicator or Performance Measure
Methods
Data Source
Frequency
Responsibility
List your Evaluation questions in this column (five rows in total). Also, if your questions required revision from Week 3, make certain those changes have been made prior to this submission
Ex: To what extent is organization XYZ utilizing funding towards programming versus administrative costs and how can the ratio be improved?
What does a successful answer to this evaluation question result in for the organization or the surrounding served population?
Ex: With an accurate assessment of expenses and revenue, the organization can make efficiency changes to push more funding towards program efforts.
What methods are required to obtain the needed information and/or data to address this question?
Ex: Financial Audit
What are your potential sources of data? E.g. Served population, internal records, IRS, etc.
Ex: XYZ Annual Report, Charity Navigator, Pro Publica, Local News Outlet
How frequently should this evaluation question be examined going forward for the organization to remain successful? *In the paragraph that follows the table explain how each frequency was chosen*
Ex: Close of Fiscal Year
List assigned ESW member by name and if the lead evaluator (you) will also be involved. *In the paragraph that follows the table explains how each ESW member was assigned to their question*
Ex: Jane Smith (ABC Foundation) and Lead Evaluator
Close with a summary paragraph or two on how the above content will help you to form a more complete opinion regarding the effectiveness of the organization.