“Why are evaluations not conducted and why are they conducted?”
Of all Hoefer’s research questions, I found the results of the agencies’ reasons for (and for not) conducting evaluation to be especially interesting.
Initially the Hoefer's agency excuses for lack of evaluation look the same: not enough money and not enough staff time. * Yawn * But look closer, dear readers, to see a new defense- the agency funder. 43% (we’ll say nearly half for impact’s sake) claimed that they had not conducted any sort of evaluation in the last two years because their funder didn’t require it. Is this a hint of apathy, or just plain old cost-benefit decision-making?
Furthermore, 39% said that they did conduct evaluation because their funders required one. Who knew the agency funders could play such a big role in evaluation plans?
Do the United Ways and other big funders have a responsibility to, as Hoefer asserts, “set the standard for what is acceptable organizational administrative practice”(p. 169)?
A final scary result from the above research question was that a whopping 14% felt there was no need to conduct an evaluation. Hell, make excuses, blame the budget, let your bottom lip quiver in fledgling non-profit glory, but to offer that evaluation wasn’t necessary is an issue in itself altogether. This is not a problem that can be solved by throwing a little more money at it. Rather, I place this back in the hands of funders to emphasize the necessity that is apparently missing. Sometimes a little red tape is a necessary evil.
Initially the Hoefer's agency excuses for lack of evaluation look the same: not enough money and not enough staff time. * Yawn * But look closer, dear readers, to see a new defense- the agency funder. 43% (we’ll say nearly half for impact’s sake) claimed that they had not conducted any sort of evaluation in the last two years because their funder didn’t require it. Is this a hint of apathy, or just plain old cost-benefit decision-making?
Furthermore, 39% said that they did conduct evaluation because their funders required one. Who knew the agency funders could play such a big role in evaluation plans?
Do the United Ways and other big funders have a responsibility to, as Hoefer asserts, “set the standard for what is acceptable organizational administrative practice”(p. 169)?
A final scary result from the above research question was that a whopping 14% felt there was no need to conduct an evaluation. Hell, make excuses, blame the budget, let your bottom lip quiver in fledgling non-profit glory, but to offer that evaluation wasn’t necessary is an issue in itself altogether. This is not a problem that can be solved by throwing a little more money at it. Rather, I place this back in the hands of funders to emphasize the necessity that is apparently missing. Sometimes a little red tape is a necessary evil.
posted by Anonymous @ 12:18 PM
2 Comments:
At 4:47 PM, October 09, 2006,
austin said…
What can you do for me now, or what have you have done for me lately? One requires evaluation to reach an answer, the other does not. If we are to be concerned with what can you do for me now, then the present is all that matters. If we are concerned with what have you done for me lately, we'll need to evaluate what we have actually done in order to tell you. The reason for being concerned with what has been done lately, is so we can decide if it is worth doing again or if we need to change it because it didn't work as planned.
By being lazy and not conducting evaluation because it isn't required, may just be a case of I did something for you know because we only care about the now. And the people conducting the now tactics don't necessarily conduct research for evaluation, but being immersed have a good feel if the tactic worked or not. While this is a crude from of evaluation, it should be recorded because it is better than nothing. And maybe by taking the baby steps at reporting on gut feelings of tactic will aid in people wanting to do better research to better evaluate their tactics.
At 4:57 PM, October 09, 2006,
Paul Jonas said…
hmmm.
I'm a little up in the air on this one. While I do think that everyone can benefit from evaluation, I also believe that it may not be necessary for everyone. I feel like such a bastard, since I do believe that "evaluation is an ever elisive monster" in public relations. I am so tangled up inside!
As noted in Campbell's piece, there is a lot going against the ability to evaluate. One was difficulty of existing indicators, another, the ever inconsistant flow of funding, and then there is the paradox itself of evaluation for non-profits - what if they lose funding because the results they find aren't optimal? (Sounds like a bit of a self-esteem problem in that case).
To get back to Sara's original post, I can see why there are some issues. A big issue is this evaluation procrastination: They're not sure how they'll do, they don't have the resources, etc... why would they want to do it? Just keep pushing it back. We've all been there. I'm not offering an excuse, I think all organizations should evaluate themselves if they want to stay in touch with reality. Whether it is formal evaluation or not, however, may be a gray area, and the 14% statistic does scare me. How do they succeed?
While I don't think that funders should be the one's responsible for nonprofit evaluation (it is their money after all), I know that if it were my money I'd want some kind of evaluation. It's very easy to believe that I know a better way to spend their money, but everyone does. It is only up to the funders to do what they will with it, even if it is unfortunately wasted on untested programming.
If there are any funders out there reading any of this, however, the Paul Jonas College Survival Fund accepts checks made out to Paul Jonas and/or Cash. I'll give you any evaluation you want.
Post a Comment
<< Home