About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

116440 1 (1981-08-01)

handle is hein.gao/gaobacuwx0001 and id is 1 raw text is: 195 PROGRAM EVALUATION AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT* Harry S. Havens, U.S. General Accounting Office Ideally, there should be some useful relationship between the process of managing a program and the process of evaluating it. We rarely find that ideal in the real world. The purpose here is to outline what managers and evalua- tors must do if they are to work together and to suggest some reasons why it is essential that they do so. It may be useful to consider, first, what is meant by the term program evaluation. It is a much abused label and, unfortunately, conveys many different things to many dif- ferent people. In addition, because of a relatively brief but checkered history that includes a substantial number of bad program evaluations, it carries a lot of excess baggage. Because of the fuzziness which seems unavoidable in any effort to define program evaluation, it seems better to approach the task by describing what it does-or at least aims to do. For purposes of this discussion, let us agree that a program-is a collection of activities intended to achieve a common purpose. The process of program evaluation, then, is an effort to judge the extent and efficiency of ac- complishment and to find ways of improving it. A good program evaluation, like a good program, is one which accomplishes its purposes with reasonable effi- ciency. The common purpose sought by any program in- volves making some change in the real world. That is, the intended results are external to the program. The same is true of program evaluation. An evaluation may meet all the standards of rigorous design, careful data collection and analysis, and a beautifully written report. If it does not af- fect the real world, if it is not used, it has failed the test which evaluators themselves apply to the programs they evaluate. But the real world which the evaluator usually seeks to affect is the program itself. He does so by affecting the decisions which are being made about that program. It is this central purpose of most program evaluation activity which necessitates its linkage to program management. Generally speaking, program evaluation serves little pur- pose if it exists in a world unto itself, isolated from the pro- cess of program management. *This article was adapted from the Roger W. Jones Lecture, delivered by the author at American University on February 27, 1981. Those processes go well beyond the individual who may be identified as the program manager. To be realistic, the concept of program management must embrace all those decisions and actions which impinge on the program, from whatever source. The Congress is engaged in program management when it enacts, amends, or repeals laws gov- erning the program or governing the actions of people who administer or participate in the program. The president and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) engage in program management when they recommend legislation and funding levels for a program, or promulgate rules which affect it. State and local governments engage in pro- gram management when they exercise their discretion to decide whether and how the program will function in their jurisdictions. Given this broad concept of program management, where should the linkage with program evaluation occur? Should the evaluator seek to affect the real world of the Congress? the Executive Office of the President? the agen- cy head? state and local government? or the person charged with administering the program? The answer is any or all of the above, depending on the issue or issues being addressed. The evaluator should seek to have the results of his work used by whoever is in the position of making a decision to which the evaluation is relevant. If the efficiency of internal operating procedures is at issue, the evaluator must connect with the program admin- istrator. If the adequacy of a law governing the program is at issue, the evaluator must face the fact of a multiplicity of decision makers, including the agency head, OMB, the president, and the Congress. Each of these sets of potential users has needs which differ. The evaluator who wishes his work to affect the real world of the program must be atten- tive to those differing needs. If those needs are in conflict, and they may well be, the evaluator must seek ways of reconciling them. Failing that, the evaluator must reach a Harry S. Havens has been assistant comptroller general for pro- gram evaluation of the U.S. General Accounting Office since April 1980. He was director of GAO's program analysis division in various positions in the Bureau of the Budget and Office of Man- agement and Budget. JULY/AUGUST 1981 C . A 0/ k 51

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most