This type of evaluation focuses on if the program was implemented as planned, if it is reaching its intended audiences, and producing the desired outputs. Process evaluation is mostly quantitative in nature, as it focuses heavily on counts, frequencies, or averages. This type of evaluation should be used at each stage of a program or initiative on an ongoing basis. When citizens understand the principles and purposes of program evaluation, they’re better positioned to hold government agencies accountable for their performance and the outcomes of their programs.

Guides

A logic model visually depicts how a program is expected to work and achieve its goals, specifying the program’s inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. Three common misconceptions regarding program evaluation are clarified by using this framework. The cost of an evaluation depends on the questions asked and the level of precision desired for the answers (36,47,48). However, the expense of an evaluation is relative, and it is important to align the investment in evaluation with program needs. Rather than discounting evaluations as time-consuming and tangential to program operations (e.g., left to the end of a program’s project period), the framework encourages conducting evaluations from the beginning that are timed strategically to provide the necessary feedback to guide action.

Additional Resources for Program Evaluation

Further improving on what program evaluation and review diagrams lack is our integrated and powerful resource management tools that support the people doing the work and the nonhuman resources they need to execute that work. The availability feature makes it easy to assign tasks to team members who can take them on, avoiding overload and idle time. By mapping out the project, a program evaluation and review technique diagram helps identify the critical path, forecast completion dates and allocate resources effectively. It’s especially useful for large, complex projects where timing is uncertain and dependencies are numerous.

• Preparation also can include various ways to disseminate evaluation findings to all interest holders in a timely, unbiased, and consistent fashion (Box 3).
• For example, when newcomers to evaluation begin to think evaluatively, fundamental shifts in perspective can occur (50).
• However, other potential definitions that were discussed included the number of funding sources the grantee had or the length of time that the grantee had successfully received the funding source.
• To increase the likelihood that the perspectives of persons with a broad range of professional and lived experiences are included in the evaluation, it can be helpful to assign persons or groups to the following categories.

Associated Data

Impact Evaluation is a rigorous type of summative evaluation that seeks to determine whether the program itself caused the observed outcomes, often by comparing results to what would have happened in the program’s absence. This program evaluation type focuses intently on how a program is delivered, examining its activities, adherence to design, and operational aspects. Formative and summative evaluations aren’t mutually exclusive; rather, they’re most effective when used in a complementary fashion. Formative evaluation can play a crucial role in ensuring that a program is well-implemented, refined, and operating effectively, thereby setting the stage for a more meaningful and valid summative evaluation. Summative Evaluation mainly seeks to judge overall effectiveness, outcomes, and impact of a program after it has been completed or reached a significant milestone. Determining whether observed outcomes were solely or primarily caused by the program, as opposed to other external factors or confounding variables, can be difficult.

Developing an analysis plan before data collection will increase the likelihood that data collection instruments include questions necessary to acquire the data needed to produce measures aligned with the indicators established in Step 4. The Gantt chart stands out for visualizing timelines, setting dependencies and tracking progress against a baseline, while task lists and kanban boards help teams manage daily work more efficiently. The calendar view offers a time-based layout for scheduling and deadlines, making it easier to stay organized. With these views, users can move between strategic planning and task-level execution seamlessly, something a program evaluation and review technique diagram alone can’t support.

Program Evaluation and Review Technique: Making a PERT Diagram

Gathering comprehensive, accurate, and reliable data at a program’s end, especially for long-term outcomes, can be complex and resource-intensive. Objectivity presents challenges when different stakeholders hold varying opinions on what aspects work well and what needs improvement, potentially leading to disagreements on necessary changes. The process can be time-consuming, requiring significant time investment to regularly assess progress, collect feedback, and implement changes.

From a funder’s perspective, describing the individual and collective impact of state-based programs can be challenging due to variations in strategies being implemented and types of data being collected. Fortunately, you can start measuring what matters and improving the efficacy of your programs by partnering with EVALCORP. We use a people-centered, data-informed approach to guide decision-making and provide quantifiable information about your programs and how well they serve your community. Our findings can then inform stakeholders and help you acquire more funding so you can maximize your impact.

Similarly, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posts evaluation reports from its Innovation Center. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), often called “the Nation’s Report Card,” provides summative data on student achievement across the U.S. Statewide assessments, such as the Iowa Statewide Assessment of Student Progress, serve as summative tools to meet federal accountability requirements under laws like the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Surveys collect data from large and representative samples of participants, stakeholders, or target populations to gauge outcomes, satisfaction, or other relevant measures.

Setting a baseline lets teams compare planned timelines against actual progress in real time, making it easier to catch deviations early. With these features, our software enhances how program evaluation and review technique-informed schedules are visualized and adjusted throughout the project lifecycle. CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation guides public health professionals in program evaluation. From a formative perspective, we look to improve our overall program including the workshops, website collections, and leadership program.The current objectives of the summative evaluation plan are to assess the impact of the workshops and website on faculty teaching and student learning. A second aim is to evaluate how the program contributes to the research base on effective faculty development. Program evaluation is a critical tool that serves the dual purpose of describing impact and identifying areas for program improvement.

Identifying dependencies at this stage prevents scheduling conflicts and helps you create a clear, realistic project plan that highlights the critical path and minimizes potential delays. The next step is to identify task dependencies, which determine how tasks relate to and rely on each other. Recognizing these dependencies allows you to establish the correct task sequences necessary for project execution.

Designing the Evaluation

• Furthermore, scientific theories or models (e.g., theory of planned behavior or diffusion of innovation) identified in earlier steps or in existing literature also might be used to explain findings.
• By maintaining a nationwide team, we can better serve your organization and understand the unique traits of your community.
• In contrast, summative evaluation results can impact much larger, strategic resource allocation decisions, such as continuation of funding for entire programs, their expansion to new populations or regions, or their termination if found ineffective or inefficient.
• To make early improvements, evaluate the quality, and to ensure that the program is aligned with its intended goals.
• In addition, 50+page aggregate evaluation reports were deemed as not useful and oftentimes not read by stakeholders.

Evidence-based policies have been shown to have the greatest impact on reducing negative outcomes of interest including prevention of injury and death. Stakeholders appreciated both the quantitative measures of program impact and the qualitative success stories. The framework is composed of six steps that are important to use in any evaluation to improve how evaluations are conceived and conducted. Each step is considered when planning an evaluation and revisited during evaluation implementation. Although the steps are arranged in a linear sequence, all steps are highly interdependent, and might be encountered in a nonlinear sequence.

Specifically, there are two types of evaluation capacity, Individual and Organizational, to consider. Individuals or groups who have authority to make decisions about the program and individuals and groups who have a general interest in the results because they design, implement, evaluate, or advocate on behalf of the program being evaluated or similar programs5. Individuals or groups who have a professional role in the program may be most interested in how to improve the process for implementing the program’s services and the outcomes that are a result of the program5. Individuals or groups who directly or indirectly receive program services may be most interested in aspects of the evaluation that are related to improvements or modifications in program services5. Program Plausibility determines if programmatic goals, outcomes, and the feasibility of measuring progress towards programmatic goals are clearly defined234. Program Intent and Logic Model determines program objectives and expectations, and depicts the relationships between/among inputs, activities, and expected outcomes234.