Social Program Evaluation: Criteria and Approaches

Definition of Two Main Parts

Two main parts are worth highlighting. On the one hand, an assessment is not an investigation; the big difference is the value judgments involved in any evaluation. The other aspect is that the assessment is restricted to the results. The set of variables that can impact program outcomes are so diverse that they make assessment a complex evaluation.

The activity is a process that requires efficiency, skills, and negotiation abilities. Also, we cannot forget that the results can influence many people, just as we cannot have the slightest doubt about the results. We must employ the necessary checks to ensure they reflect reality.

Study and Analysis of Evaluation Definitions

All evaluations emphasize any of the following:

• Establish a value judgment: This implies not only collecting and interpreting information but also making judgments about the value of objectives.
• Systematization: Refers to the precision with which information is gathered, based on a rigorous descriptive process.
• Integrated into the program
• A systematic reflection
• Facilitates better programs
• Permanent
• Helps practitioners understand reality
• Facilitates awareness
• Is a systematic process

The most important aspects are marked in bold. All definitions of assessment depend on the importance that the author gives to the following parameters:

• Internal vs. External Evaluation
• Quantitative vs. Qualitative Evaluation
• Additive vs. Formative Evaluation

The wisest approach for social programs is internal assessment, formative, and complementarity of the qualitative and quantitative.

Criteria to Guide Qualitative Evaluation

A. Gender: The judgment of merit or demerit should not be of the evaluator, but of those involved. An assessment question about the meaning and value of the realities under evaluation, to guide the collection of evidence, information, and viewpoints. The reason for choosing a shared view is that correct assessment is not in the possession of privileged groups or individuals.

B. Ubiquity: Everything has to be analyzed. Sometimes, natural complexities are simplified, with the justification that relaxing is easier to draw conclusions and make judgments. Sensitive procedures are recommended to capture the aspirations, values, understandings, and interests. Ambiguity is not incompatible with rigor but with oversimplification.

C. Diversity: The assessor is required to achieve a consensus explanatory, i.e., to take into account the variety of explanations and demonstrate how and why they occur. You must ensure open and frank discussion while respecting the right of individuals to privacy.

D. Utility: The evaluation should provide necessary assistance; you should use the contents of the reports as a reference point for discussion. The publicity of reports is required by law; society, in general, needs to know the value of interventions and may contribute to knowledge. Because of this, the report should use language that is understandable by any citizen.

E. Redundancy: Repeatedly delving into the meeting, knowing and deciphering clues from reality, and continuity must be initiated on ongoing assessments of social interventions. The difficult balance between the right to privacy and the need for knowledge and social responsibility of those involved in the reality studied must be maintained as far as possible. The assessment must account for public action to find ways to increase information to the outside, but given that internal criticism is more important.

F. Generalization: The evaluator and the client should seek to generalize the results.

Approaches to Guide Quantitative Evaluation

A. Meet the needs and perspectives of all involved.

The evaluation will be useful; it is specified that it is aimed at individuals and groups related to the task of making what is being assessed and inform them of strengths, weaknesses, and solutions for improvement. To achieve this purpose:

• It is necessary to describe the groups affected if their needs can be met.
• You must look after the needs of those responsible and the whole program, claiming to have more funding opportunities.