Project evaluation is a standard and systematic procedure that answers questions concerning a policy or program. The procedure works by collecting and analyzing information concerning the program and using the results obtained to answer the raised questions. The purpose of conducting a program evaluation is to determine the program’s effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, sustainability, impact, and weaknesses. The deductions from such evaluation are crucial to initiating strategic changes by integrating recommended improvements and adjustments. Through program evaluation, it is possible to increase efficiency by replacing non-efficient policies with more efficient ones. It is also possible to enhance sustainability. In the criminal justice system, for example, program evaluation would help to make policies more ethical and efficient (Cronbach et al., 2020). Evaluating the community policing program by the New York City Police Department (NYPD) could help eliminate non-beneficial practices and incorporate more productive ones in the system.
Recommendations for Interpreting Evaluation Results
The evaluators need to interpret results correctly during and after the evaluation process. The correct interpretation is as important as the correct results. Not all stakeholders understand what the results mean and the impact they have on them. For example, some community members are uneducated and cannot understand some results. However, they are key stakeholders in a community policing program evaluation and must contribute (Vito & Higgins, 2019). The evaluator’s role is to interpret the results correctly and make them understand before giving their recommendations.
Incorrectly interpreted results could mean that wrong answers are given to the questions that the evaluation program seeks to answer. By giving wrong answers, unsuitable recommendations will be given, and unsuitable investments will be made in the changing process. Such mistakes lead to losing finances, resources, and time (Vito & Higgins, 2019). In the end, the whole process might end up ruining the program and making it inefficient and ineffective. It is, therefore, important for evaluators to interpret end communicate results correctly to stakeholders and decision-makers.
The strategies to be used in ensuring correct interpretation are the use of charts and value judgement. Charts are pictorial representations of results. This strategy is effective because it does not require a wide knowledge base on the subject matter for an individual to understand. Interpreting charts is easy and reduces the possibility of making errors. Value judgement involves setting desired performance standards and comparing the results with those standards to determine whether the program is effective. The standards should be set well in advance during the planning phase of program evaluation (Vito & Higgins, 2019). Through the strategies, stakeholders can easily deduce the inefficiencies of the program and readily know what is required of them.
Recommendations for Reporting Evaluation Results
An evaluation process focuses on satisfying the needs of a program’s or policy’s stakeholders. It is, therefore, crucial to involve the stakeholders throughout the process. In community policing, stakeholders include community members, police departments, administrative officers, learning institutions, churches and mosques. It is important to involve all these stakeholders through a collaborative process that considers their views, proposals and recommendations (Cronbach et al., 2020). Such involvement can be achieved through continued communication throughout the process. Such communication plays a significant role in ensuring that the scope of the evaluation is wide enough to capture all concerns of stakeholders.
Regular communication also helps in maintaining good relationships with stakeholders. They will understand the significance of the evaluation process and how it affects them directly or indirectly. They will also understand what is required of them and what they expect from other parties concerning the program. The program’s key decision-makers and facilitators also gain substantial knowledge concerning challenges and inefficiency (Vito & Higgins, 2019). By gaining such insights, they are in a better position to make more informed and accurate decisions on recommendations for improvement.
The strategies to communicate details to stakeholders and decision-makers are in-person presentations and written reports. Presentations are effective for audiences available in person. The strategy is instrumental in persuading and convincing the audience. Before the evaluation process begins, the evaluators can convince stakeholders and decision-makers why the implementation methods are viable. They could also gain more ideas on other possible methods that could be adopted. Besides, the scope of the evaluation could be redefined by expanding or reducing it to fit the needs of all stakeholders (Vito & Higgins, 2019). This way, consensus is readily achievable, and all parties will be satisfied with the process.
The second strategy of reporting is through formal reports. Such reports are instrumental in keeping a record for future reference and are easily comprehensible. Tables and charts could be used accordingly to make the report easily understandable and interpretable to any individual (Cronbach et al., 2020). Besides, a formal written report can be accessed by anybody without attending a briefing or debrief session. The information in a written report is reliable and preserves integrity.
Recommendations for Using Evaluation Results
After the evaluation process, stakeholders need to use the results to initiate recommended changes to the program. Decision-makers and stakeholders must manage the required changes to achieve optimum results effectively. Managing the changes will help ensure the program’s stability during the process and prevent them from affecting the already effective aspects.
In integrating changes, the first strategy to use is scope-driven integration. This strategy emphasizes identifying challenges and limitations as the first step. Understanding the challenges to be resolved and limitations to be encountered places the evaluator in a better position to determine the correct and effective approach to use. It also seeks to stipulate integration goals and the impact of the integration on the program. The second strategy is minimal integration. In this strategy, the evaluator involves all stakeholders in the integration process to determine the best way to achieve the desired changes in an effective way and within a short period (Vito & Higgins, 2019). The strategies effectively ensure all stakeholders’ full participation and on-point improvement of the program.
To support the evaluation recommendations, the supervisor can provide recommendations on the best approach to achieve the desired results. Stakeholders can facilitate the integration by giving financial support and dedicating human resources to the program (Cronbach et al., 2020). The supervisor can also support the integration by dedicating the necessary resources toward completing the integration process.
References
Cronbach, L. J., Ambron, S. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Hess, R. D., Hornik, R. C., Phillips, D. C., … & Weiner, S. S. (2020). Toward reform of program evaluation (p. 3). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Vito, G. F., & Higgins, G. E. (2019). Practical program evaluation for criminal justice. Routledge.
write