Examining the potential and the limitations of evaluation, this article envisions an essential role for evaluation in achieving appropriate governmental change. That role is a deliberate one that seeks to improve the basis for policymaking, rather than to influence the direction of policy. Evaluation can do this by bringing objective information to bear on whether a proposed change—in any policy direction—is likely to reach its goals. Current limitations of evaluation are identified as resulting from the newness of the evaluation field, from differing perspectives among evaluation producers and users, and from various systemic situations which block or vitiate the evaluative effort. New uses of evaluation methodologies are proposed, along with creative management of evaluation performance. Finally, a clearinghouse to ensure the cumulative use of evaluation findings is recommended.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Title VII, Program Review and Evaluation, Conference Report, H.R. 7130, Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, passed Senate 21 June 1974, P.L. 93-344.
2.
2. Statement of the Honorable William V. Roth on the floor of the Senate, “Public Program Analysis and Evaluation for the Purposes of the Executive and the Congress,”Congressional Record, 8 June 1972, S9026.
3.
3. Statement of the Honorable Bill Brock, “A Congressional View of Program Evaluation,” at the WORC/TIMS Congressional Series, 27 Feb. 1975.
4.
4. David H. Florio, Michael M. Behrmann, and Diane L. Goltz, “What Do Policymakers Think of Educational Research and Evaluation? Or Do They?”Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 1(6):68 (Nov.-Dec. 1979).
5.
5. Murray L. Weidenbaum, Dan Larkins, and Philip N. Marcus, Matching Needs and Resources: Reforming the Federal Budget (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1973), p. 11.
6.
6. Daniel P. Moynihan, cited in Peter Marris and Martin Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine, 1973), p. 241.
7.
7. Eleanor Chelimsky, “Making Block Grants Accountable,” in Evaluation in Change, ed. Lois-ellin Datta (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1981), p. 100.
8.
8. The discussion of evaluation given here is a synthesis of views derived from the following works: Joseph S. Wholeyet al., Federal Evaluation Policy (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 1970); Carol H. Weiss, Evaluation Research (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1972); Eleanor Chelimsky, Analysis of a Symposium on the Use of Evaluation by Federal Agencies, M77-39 (McLean, VA: MITRE Corporation, July 1977), vol. 2; and Harry P. Hatry, Richard E. Winnie, and Donald M. Fisk, Practical Program Evaluation for State and Local Governments (Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 1981).
9.
9. The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, Standards for Evaluations of Educational Programs, Projects, and Materials (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981).
10.
10. Standards Committee, Standards for Program Evaluation (Columbus, OH: Evaluation Research Society, May 1980).
11.
11. U.S. General Accounting Office, A Profile of Federal Program Evaluation Activities, IPE-82-8 (forthcoming).
12.
12. Chelimsky, Analysis of a Symposium.
13.
13. Gene E. Hallet al., “Levels of Use of the Innovation: A Framework for Analyzing Innovation Adoption,”Journal of Teacher Education, 26(1):52 (Spring 1978).
14.
14. Elmer B. Staats, “Remarks to the Evaluation Research Society's Annual Convention,”Austin, TX, 3 Oct. 1981.
15.
15. Thomas L. Lalley, cited in Eleanor Chelimsky, Interviews for a Symposium on the Institutionalization of Federal Programs at the Local Level, M78-80 (McLean, VA: MITRE Corporation, May 1979), appendix, pp. 792-793.
16.
16. Eleanor Chelimsky, “Improving the Cost Effectiveness of Evaluation,” in The Costs of Evaluation, ed. Marvin C. Alkin (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, forthcoming).
17.
17. Irwin Feller, cited in Chelimsky, Interviews for a Symposium, p. 140.
18.
18. Ibid.
19.
19. Roth, “Public Program Analysis,”S9026.
20.
20. Two of these papers are now published. They are: U.S. General Accounting Office, Disparities Still Exist in Who Gets Special Education, Report to Chairman, Subcommittee on Select Education, House Committee on Education and Labor, IPE-81-1, 30 Sept. 1981; and U.S. General Accounting Office, CETA Programs for Disadvantaged Adults—What Do We Know about Their Enrollees, Services, and Effectiveness? Report to Chairman, Subcommittee on Employment Opportunities, House Committee on Education and Labor, GAO/IPE-82-2, 14 June 1982. The other three are pending.
21.
21. Eleanor Chelimsky, “Some Thoughts on the Nature, Definition, and Measurement of Quality as a Component of Evaluation Management,” in The Management of Program Evaluation, New Directions for Program Evaluation, ed. Robert St. Pierre (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, forthcoming).
