Evaluation units found in large organizations confront a number of impediments to the use of their findings and recommendations. These derive from both the formal roles they play and their own operating styles and processes. Drawing on experience at the U.S. General Accounting Office and the World Bank, this paper suggests that to improve the usefulness—and use—of their work, such units need to pay careful attention to the multiplicity of audiences they necessarily address, the divergent information needs of those audiences, and the timeliness of their work.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Caracelli, V., & Preskill, H. (Eds.). (2000). The expanding scope of evaluation use. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Evaluation, 88.
2.
Feinstein, O. (2002). Use of evaluations and the evaluation of their use. Evaluation, 8, 433-439.
3.
Grasso, P. G. (1996). End of an era: Closing the U.S. General Accounting Office’s Program Evaluation and Methodology Division. Evaluation Practice, 17, 115-117.
4.
Grasso, P. G. (forthcoming). Quality of evaluative information at the World Bank. In R. Schwartz & J. Mayne (Eds.), Quality matters: Seeking confidence in evaluation, auditing and performance reporting. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
5.
Mark, M., Henry, G., & Julnes, G. (2000). Evaluation: An integrated framework for understanding, guiding, and improving policies and programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
6.
McLaughlin, J. A. (Ed.). (1988). Evaluation utilization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 39.
7.
Morris, L. L., Fitz-Gibbon, C. T., & Freeman, M. E. (1987). How to communicate evaluation findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
Patton, M. Q. (1978). Utilization-focused evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
9.
Scriven, M. (2003). The evaluation thesaurus (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
Torres, R. T., Preskill, H. S., & Piontek, M. E. (1996). Evaluation strategies for communicating and reporting: Enhancing learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1987). Employee stock ownership plans: Little evidence of effects on corporate performance. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
12.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1991). Minority participation in administration on aging programs. Testimony of Eleanor Chelimsky before the subcommittee on aging, senate committee on labor and human resources. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
13.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Peer review: Reforms needed to ensure fairness in federal agency grant selection. Washington, DC: U.S. General Accounting Office.
14.
World Bank. (2000). The World Bank forest strategy: Striking the right balance. Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluation Department.
15.
World Bank. (2002). Grant programs: Improving their governance (Precis number 224). Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluation Department.
16.
World Bank. (2003a, February 24). Independence of OED. OED Reach. Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluation Department.
17.
World Bank. (2003b). P. Grasso, S. Wasty, & R. Weaving (Eds.), World Bank Operations Evaluation Department: The first 30 years. Washington, DC: World Bank Operations Evaluation Department.
