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: 50207 Find in a Library
Title: FEDERAL EVALUATION OFFICE?
Journal: EVALUATION  Volume:1  Issue:2  Dated:(1973)  Pages:56-59,92,96
Author(s): L E LYNN
Corporate Author: Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1973
Page Count: 6
Sponsoring Agency: Minneapolis Medical Research Foundation, Inc
Minneapolis, MN 55415
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: EVALUATION EXPERIENCE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE IS SUMMARIZED. THE LESSONS LEARNED AT THIS AGENCY FORM THE BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REFORM OF FEDERAL EVALUATION MANAGEMENT.
Abstract: THE APPROACH TO EVALUATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE (HEW) IS ONE OF THE MOST THOROUGHLY DEVELOPED IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AT HEW, EVALUATION FOR ALL PROJECTS EMANATES FROM A CENTRAL OFFICE WHICH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOCATING THE EVALUATION FUNDS, SUPERVISING THE EVALUATION DESIGN, ASSESSING THE QUALITY OF CONTRACTORS HIRED TO DO THE EVALUATION, AND PUBLICIZING THE RESULTS. HEW'S EXPERIENCE SHOWS THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO INSTITUTIONALIZE EVALUATION IN A LARGE, COMPLEX BUREAUCRACY AND TO PRODUCE USEFUL EVALUATIONS IN SUCH A SYSTEM. HEW HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AND AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO EVALUATION ARE NOT ENOUGH TO INSURE A GOOD EVALUATION PROGRAM. THE IMPACT OF EVALUATION ON THE POLICY OF ANY ONE STUDY MAY NOT BE DRAMATIC, BUT THE OVERALL IMPACT OF AN EVALUATIONORIENTED APPROACH DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE DESIGN AND OPERATION OF PROGRAMS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT PROGRAM IMPACT EVALUATIONS BE PLANNED AND DIRECTED AT A LEVEL THAT INSURES THE MAXIMUM PRACTICAL DETACHMENT FROM PAROCHIAL AND SHORTRUN CONCERNS OF BUREAUS AND AGENCIES. CENTRALIZED AGENCIES COULD ATTRACT GOOD EVALUATION TALENT, WHICH IS IN SHORT SUPPLY. DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS MUST BE VIRTUALLY AUTOMATIC. THERE SHOULD BE A CLEAR POINT AT WHICH THE EVALUATION IS 'COMPLETED' AND 'REVIEWED FOR QUALITY AND VALIDITY.' FUNDING FOR EVALUATION SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY FOLLOW PROGRAM FUNDING. A CENTRAL OFFICE COULD APPORTION EVALUATION FUNDS TO THOSE PROGRAMS MOST IN NEED OF SUCH RESEARCH AND SET UP A SCHEDULE FOR REGULAR REVIEW OF PROGRAMS AT LEAST ONCE EVERY 3 YEARS. THE CENTRAL OFFICE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR QUALITY CONTROL OF EVALUATIONS. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT EITHER A FEDERAL PROGRAM EVALUATION OFFICE BE ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET OR A MASTER EVALUATION OFFICE BE SET UP FOR EACH PROGRAM AGENCY. A FEDERAL OFFICE COULD ALLOCATE FUNDS TO THE AGENCIES AND ASSUME OVERALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS. AN AGENCY-LEVEL OFFICE WOULD BE MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR AGENCY NEEDS. BOTH PROPOSALS OFFER ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES, BUT EITHER IS BETTER THAN THE PIECEMEAL EVALUATION CURRENTLY FOUND IN MANY AGENCIES. (GLR)
Index Term(s): Evaluation; Evaluation criteria; Evaluation of evaluation; Federal programs; Grants or contracts; Quality control; US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=50207

*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.