Evaluation Monster Rears Its Pretty Head

If there's one thing I've learned during my time in the public relations Master's program, it's that evaluation is an ever elusive little monster. Public relations cannot seem to find a solid way to evaluate programs, and apparently the profession is not alone. Hoefer's article raises several interesting points regarding nonprofit accountability.

• United Way of Dallas' initative "to work with local partner agencies to make program evaluation results a required part of the funding application process" (p. 169) seems to be a great start in promoting accountability in nonprofits. But what about those that aren't local partner agencies? How can they be spurred to pursue evaluation and in turn, accountability?
• It seems imperative that nonprofits find some way to conduct better research. Hoefer notes that "conversations with agency directors and funders indicated that there would not be any evaluations in the Dallas area that used true experimental design" (p. 173). I realize that these findings cannot be generalized to all nonprofits, but how do "we" promote better research methods in nonprofit evaluation? Is it acceptable to do something rather than nothing? Should the results from "relatively weak designs" (p. 172) have much weight? Obviously, as mentioned in the article, evaluation takes time, money, and man-power therefore many nonprofits cannot afford to do evaluation. How do nonprofits solve this problem in the midst of trying to give as much money as possible to their clients while also fairly compensating employees, etc?
• I found the following quote to be very telling: "The combination of weak designs and unknown measures is troubling because conclusions based on such research are not necessarily valid. Providing possibly inaccurate information to stakeholders, even in good faith, does not lead to a high level of accountability" (p. 174).

Does anyone have these answers? If so, you could probably make a lot of money ...