skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 50206 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: BETWEEN THE CUP AND THE LIP...
Journal: EVALUATION  Volume:1  Issue:2  Dated:(1973)  Pages:49-55
Author(s): C H WEISS
Corporate Author: Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1973
Page Count: 7
Sponsoring Agency: Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Inc
Minneapolis, MN 55415
US Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare
Rockville, MD 20857
Contract Number: HSM-42-69-82
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A STUDY ON EVALUATION REPORTS THAT FACTORS IMPEDING MOST PROGRAM STUDIES INCLUDES UNCLEAR GOALS, TURNOVER IN EVALUATION STAFF, A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN PROGRAM STAFF AND EVALUATORS, AND POOR TIMING.
Abstract: AN EVALUATION OF THE EVALUATION OF 10 APPLIED RESEARCH PROJECTS, 7 FUNDED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH AND 3 BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES, FOUND THAT MUCH RESEARCH FALLS SHORT OF EXPECTATIONS, NOT BECAUSE THE EVALUATORS ARE INEXPERIENCED BUT BECAUSE ORGANIZATIONAL PROBLEMS PREVENT EVALUATORS FROM APPLYING WHAT THEY KNOW. THIS STUDY FOUND LITTLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT PREVIOUS ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE HARMFUL LONG-RANGE EFFECTS OF PERSONALITY CONFLICTS BETWEEN EVALUATORS AND PROGRAM STAFF. INSTEAD, MAJOR PROBLEMS AROSE FROM THE DIFFERENCES IN PROFESSIONAL ROLES; THE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATOR MUST BELIEVE IN WHAT IS BEING DONE, BUT THE EVALUATOR'S FUNCTION IS TO DOUBT. CONFLICTS ALSO AROSE CONCERNING THE PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION. EVALUATION WAS TOLERATED IF IT WAS MANDATED BY THE GRANT OR WAS SEEN AS A WAY TO GET ADDITIONAL FUNDING, BUT IF THERE WAS NO CLEAR CONSENSUS OF PURPOSE, FRICTION AROSE. STAFFING OF THE EVALUATION BECAME A MAJOR PROBLEM FOR MOST OF THE PROJECTS. ONE PROJECT HAD 3 DIFFERENT RESEARCH DIRECTORS IN 3 YEARS. TURNOVER AT LOWER LEVELS WAS ALSO HIGH. IN SOME PROJECTS EVALUATORS WERE PAID MORE THAN CLINICIANS, WHICH WAS ANOTHER SOURCE OF FRICTION. WHEN OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS WERE CALLED IN, THEY USUALLY COULD DEVOTE ONLY PART OF THEIR TIME TO THE PROJECT AND, AS A RESULT, MISSED MANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN THE PROGRAM AND POLICY. THE RELUCTANCE OF STAFF TO FILL IN DATA SHEETS WAS CONSTANT THROUGHOUT. TIMING WAS ALSO A PROBLEM IN THAT EVALUATORS OFTEN WANTED BASELINE DATA AND WOULD THEREFORE HOLD UP TRAINING OR OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM TO GATHER THEM. AT THE CONCLUSION OF AN EVALUATION, THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH STAFF LEAVING TO TAKE NEW JOBS AND THE REPORT BEING COMPLETED ON A PART-TIME BASIS, POSSIBLY AT HOME. MOST EVALUATION REPORTS, HOWEVER, REMAIN UNREAD, WHICH MEANS THAT VALID FINDINGS FROM SMALL COMMUNITY PROJECTS MAY GO UNNOTICED. SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION OF FINDINGS IS NEEDED. (GLR) EVALUATION REPORTS, HOWEVER, REMAIN UNREAD, WHICH MEANS THAT VALID FINDINGS FROM SMALL COMMUNITY PROJECTS MAY GO UNNOTICED. SELECTIVE DISTRIBUTION OF FINDINGS IS NEEDED. (GLR)
Index Term(s): Critiques; Evaluation; Evaluation of evaluation; Interpersonal relations; Personality
Note: CONDENSED FROM A REPORT ENTITLED 'ORGANIZATIONAL CONSTRAINTS ON EVALUATION RESEARCH'
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=50206

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.