Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan: Setting the Course for Effective Program Evaluation

Developing an Effective

Evaluation Plan

Setting the course for

effective program evaluation

Acknowledgements

This workbook was developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Oce on

Smoking and Health (OSH) and Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity (DNPAO)

as part of a series of technical assistance workbooks for use by program managers, and

evaluators. The workbooks are intended to oer guidance and facilitate capacity building on a

wide range of evaluation topics. We encourage users to adapt the tools and resources in this

workbook to meet their program’s evaluation needs.

This workbook applies the CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health

(www.cdc.gov/eval). The Framework lays out a six-step process for the decisions and activities

involved in conducting an evaluation. While the Framework provides steps for program

evaluation, the steps are not always linear and represent a more back-and-forth eort; some

can be completed concurrently. In some cases, it makes more sense to skip a step and come

back to it. The important thing is that the steps are considered within the specic context of

your program.

The following individuals from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Oce

on Smoking and Health (OSH), and Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity

(DNPAO), were primary contributors to the preparation of this publication:

S René Lavinghouze, MA, Evaluation Team Lead/OSH

Jan Jernigan, PhD, Senior Evaluation Scientist/DNPAO

The following also contributed to the preparation of this publication:

LaTisha Marshall, MPH, Health Scientist/OSH; LCDR Adriane Niare, MPH CHES, Health

Scientist/OSH; Kim Snyder, MPH, Contractor, ICF International; Marti Engstrom, MA, Evaluation

Team Lead/OSH; Rosanne Farris, PhD, RD, Branch Chief/DNPAO

We also gratefully acknowledge the contributions ICF International provided in

developing the graphics and copy editing.

For more information, contact: René Lavinghouze, Senior Evaluation Scientist in OSH at

[email protected], or Jan Jernigan, Senior Evaluation Scientist in DNPAO at JJernigan1@

cdc.gov.

Suggested Citation: Developing an Eective Evaluation Plan: Setting the Course for Eective

Program Evaluation. Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National

Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Oce on Smoking and Health;

Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity, 2011.

Table of Contents

Part I: Developing Your Evaluation Plan ........................................................................1

Who is the audience for this workbook?

................................................................... 1

What is an evaluation plan?

....................................................................................1

Why do you want an evaluation plan?

......................................................................2

How do you write an evaluation plan?

......................................................................3

What are the key steps in developing an evaluation plan using

CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation?

..............................................................4

The Process of Participatory Evaluation Planning

......................................................6

Step 1: Engage Stakeholders

.............................................................................6

Defining the Purpose in the Plan

..................................................................6

The ESW: Why should you engage stakeholders in developing

the evaluation plan?

....................................................................................7

Who are the program’s stakeholders?

.......................................................... 8

How do you use an ESW to develop an evaluation plan?................................8

How are stakeholder’s roles described in the plan?

....................................... 9

Step 2: Describe the Program

..........................................................................12

Shared Understanding of the Program

.......................................................12

Narrative Description

................................................................................12

Logic Model

.............................................................................................13

Stage of Development

...............................................................................14

Step 3: Focus the Evaluation

............................................................................18

Developing Evaluation Questions

...............................................................19

Budget and Resources

.............................................................................. 21

Step 4: Planning for Gathering Credible Evidence ..............................................23

Choosing the Appropriate Methods

............................................................24

Credible Evidence

..................................................................................... 25

Measurement

...........................................................................................25

Data Sources and Methods

.......................................................................26

Roles and Responsibilities

......................................................................... 27

Evaluation Plan Methods Grid

.................................................................... 27

Budget

.....................................................................................................28

Step 5: Planning for Conclusions

......................................................................30

Step 6: Planning for Dissemination and Sharing of Lessons Learned

...................33

Communication and Dissemination Plans

................................................... 34

Ensuring Use

............................................................................................ 37

One Last Note

..........................................................................................37

Pulling It All Together

............................................................................................40

References...........................................................................................................43

Part II: Exercise, Worksheets, and Tools

......................................................................44

Step 1: 1.1 Stakeholder Mapping Exercise

.............................................................45

Step 1: 1.2 Evaluation Purpose Exercise

................................................................50

Step 1: 1.3 Stakeholder Inclusion and Communication Plan Exercise

.......................53

Step 1: 1.4 Stakeholder Information Needs Exercise ................................................... 55

Step 2: 2.1 Program Stage of Development Exercise ..............................................57

Step 3: 3.1 Focus the Evaluation Exercise

..............................................................62

Step 4: 4.1 Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Exercise

.................................................68

Step 4: 4.2 Evaluation Budget Exercise

.................................................................. 73

Step 5: 5.1 Stakeholder Interpretation Meeting Exercise..........................................76

Step 6: 6.1 Reporting Checklist Exercise

................................................................ 80

Tools and Templates: Checklist for Ensuring Effective Evaluation Reports.............80

Step 6: 6.2 Communicating Results Exercise

..........................................................82

Outline: 7.1 Basic Elements of an Evaluation Plan ...................................................88

Outline: 7.2 Evaluation Plan Sketchpad

.................................................................. 88

Logic Model Examples

..........................................................................................98

OSH Logic Models Example

.............................................................................98

Preventing Initiation of Tobacco Use Among Young People

........................... 98

Eliminating Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke

..........................99

Promoting Quitting Among Adults and Young People

.................................100

DNPAO Logic Model Example

......................................................................... 101

State NPAO Program—Detailed Logic Model

...........................................101

Resources

................................................................................................................. 102

Web Resources

..................................................................................................102

Making your ideas stick, reporting, and program planning

..................................... 104

Qualitative Methods

............................................................................................ 104

Quantitative Methods

.......................................................................................... 105

Evaluation Use

....................................................................................................105

OSH Evaluation Resources

..................................................................................105

DNPAO Evaluation Resources

.............................................................................. 108

Figures

Figure 1: CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health ........................ 5

Figure 2: Sample Logic Model

.......................................................................... 13

Figure 3.1: Stage of Development by Logic Model Category

.................................. 15

Figure 3.2: Stage of Development by Logic Model Category Example

..................... 15

Figure 4.1: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example

...............................................27

Figure 4.2: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example

...............................................28

Figure 5:

Communication Plan Table .................................................................36

Acronyms

BRFSS Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

DNPAO Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity

ESW Evaluation Stakeholder Workgroup

NIDRR National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

OSH Office on Smoking and Health

PRAMS Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System

YRBS Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance

Part I: Developing Your Evaluation Plan

WHO IS THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS WORKBOOK?

The purpose of this workbook is to help public health program managers, administrators,

and evaluators develop a joint understanding of what constitutes an evaluation plan, why it

is important, and how to develop an effective evaluation plan in the context of the planning

process. This workbook is intended to assist in developing an evaluation plan but is not

intended to serve as a complete resource on how to implement program evaluation. Rather,

it is intended to be used along with other evaluation resources, such as those listed in the

Resource Section of this workbook. The workbook was written by the staff of the Ofﬁce

on Smoking and Health (OSH) and the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity

(DNPAO) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and ICF International.

However, the content and steps for writing an evaluation plan can be applied to any public

health program or initiative. Part I of this workbook deﬁnes and describes how to write an

effective evaluation plan. Part II of this workbook includes exercises, worksheets, tools, and

a Resource Section to facilitate program staff and evaluation stakeholder workgroup (ESW)

thinking through the concepts presented in Part I of this workbook.

WHAT IS AN EVALUATION PLAN?

An evaluation plan is a written document that describes

how you will monitor and evaluate your program, as well

as how you intend to use evaluation results for program

improvement and decision making. The evaluation plan

clariﬁes how you will describe the “What,” the “How,”

and the “Why It Matters” for your program.



The “What” reflects the description of your

program and how its activities are linked with the

intended effects. It serves to clarify the program’s

purpose and anticipated outcomes.

The “How” addresses the process for implementing a program and provides

information about whether the program is operating with ﬁdelity to the program’s

design. Additionally, the “How” (or process evaluation), along with output and/or

short-term outcome information, helps clarify if changes should be made during

implementation.

An evaluation plan is a written

document that describes how

you will monitor and evaluate

your program, so that you will

be able to describe the “What”,

the “How”, and the “Why It

Matters” for your program

and use evaluation results for

program improvement and

decision making.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

 The “Why It Matters” provides the rationale for your program and the impact it has

on public health. This is also sometimes referred to as the “so what” question.

Being able to demonstrate that your program has made a difference is critical to

program sustainability.

An evaluation plan is similar to a roadmap. It clariﬁes the steps needed to assess the

processes and outcomes of a program. An effective evaluation plan is more than a

column of indicators added to your program’s work plan. It is a dynamic tool (i.e., a “living

document”) that should be updated on an ongoing basis to reﬂect program changes and

priorities over time. An evaluation plan serves as a bridge between evaluation and program

planning by highlighting program goals, clarifying measurable program objectives, and

linking program activities with intended outcomes.

WHY DO YOU WANT AN EVALUATION PLAN?

Just as using a roadmap facilitates progress on a long journey, an evaluation plan can

clarify what direction your evaluation should take based on priorities, resources, time, and

skills needed to accomplish the evaluation. The process of developing an evaluation plan

in cooperation with an evaluation workgroup of stakeholders will foster collaboration and

a sense of shared purpose. Having a written evaluation plan will foster transparency and

ensure that stakeholders are on the same page with regards to the purpose, use, and users

of the evaluation results. Moreover, use of evaluation results is not something that can be

hoped or wished for but must be planned, directed, and intentional (Patton, 2008). A written

plan is one of your most effective tools in your evaluation tool box.

A written evaluation plan can—



create a shared understanding of the purpose(s), use, and users of the evaluation

results,

foster program transparency to stakeholders and decision makers,

increase buy-in and acceptance of methods,

connect multiple evaluation activities—this is especially useful when a program

employs different contractors or contracts,

serve as an advocacy tool for evaluation resources based on negotiated priorities

and established stakeholder and decision maker information needs,

help to identify whether there are sufficient program resources and time to

accomplish desired evaluation activities and answer prioritized evaluation questions,

assist in facilitating a smoother transition when there is staff turnover,

facilitate evaluation capacity building among partners

and stakeholders,

 provide a multi-year comprehensive document that makes explicit everything from

stakeholders to dissemination to use of results, and

 facilitate good evaluation practice.

There are several critical elements needed to ensure that your evaluation plan lives up to its

potential. These elements include ensuring (1) that your plan is collaboratively developed

with a stakeholder workgroup, (2) that it is responsive to program changes and priorities,

(3) that it covers multiple years if your project is ongoing, and (4) that it addresses your

entire program rather than focusing on just one funding source or objective/activity. You

will, by necessity, focus the evaluation based on feasibility, stage of development, ability

to consume information, and other priorities that will be discussed in Steps 3 and 4 in this

workbook. However, during the planning phase, your entire program should be considered

by the evaluation group.

HOW DO YOU WRITE AN EVALUATION PLAN?

This workbook is organized by describing the elements of the evaluation plan within

the context of using the CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health

(http://www.cdc.gov/eval/) and the planning process. The elements of an evaluation plan

that will be discussed in this workbook include:

 Title page: Contains an easily identifiable program name, dates covered, and basic

focus of the evaluation.

 Intended use and users: Fosters transparency about the purpose(s) of the

evaluation and identiﬁes who will have access to evaluation results. It is important

to build a market for evaluation results from the beginning. Clarifying the primary

intended users, the members of the stakeholder evaluation workgroup, and the

purpose(s) of the evaluation will help to build this market.

 Program description: Provides the opportunity for building a shared understanding

of the theory of change driving the program. This section often includes a logic

model and a description of the stage of development of the program in addition to a

narrative description.

 Evaluation focus: Provides the opportunity to document how the evaluation focus

will be narrowed and the rationale for the prioritization process. Given that there are

never enough resources or time to answer every evaluation question, it is critical to

work collaboratively to prioritize the evaluation based on a shared understanding

of the theory of change identified in the logic model, the stage of development

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

of the program, the intended uses of the evaluation, as well as feasibility issues.

This section should delineate the criteria for evaluation prioritization and include a

discussion of feasibility and efficiency.

 Methods: Identifies evaluation indicators and performance measures, data sources

and methods, as well as roles and responsibilities. This section provides a clear

description of how the evaluation will be implemented to ensure credibility of

evaluation information.

 Analysis and interpretation plan: Clarifies how information will be analyzed and

describes the process for interpretation of results. This section describes who will

get to see interim results, whether there will be a stakeholder interpretation meeting

or meetings, and methods that will be used to analyze the data.

 Use, dissemination, and sharing plan: Describes plans for use of evaluation

results and dissemination of evaluation findings. Clear, specific plans for evaluation

use should be discussed from the beginning. This section should include a broad

overview of how findings are to be used as well as more detailed information about

the intended modes and methods for sharing results with stakeholders. This is a

critical but often neglected section of the evaluation plan.

WHAT ARE THE KEY STEPS IN DEVELOPING AN

EVALUATION PLAN USING CDC’S FRAMEWORK FOR

PROGRAM EVALUATION?

CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health (1999) is a guide to effectively

evaluate public health programs and use the ﬁndings for program improvement and

decision making. While the framework is described in terms of steps, the actions are not

always linear and are often completed in a back-and-forth effort that is cyclical in nature.

Similar to the framework, the development of an evaluation plan is an ongoing process.

You may need to revisit a step during the process and complete other discrete steps

concurrently. Within each step of the framework, there are important components that are

useful to consider in the creation of an evaluation plan.

Figure 1: CDC Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health

Steps:

1. Engage stakeholders.

2. Describe the

program.

3. Focus the evaluation

design.

4. Gather credible

evidence.

5. Justify conclusions.

6. Ensure use and share

lessons learned.

In addition to CDC’s

Framework for Program

Evaluation in Public Health

there are evaluation

standards that will enhance

the quality of evaluations by

guarding against potential

mistakes or errors in

practice. The evaluation standards are grouped around four important attributes: utility,

feasibility, propriety, and accuracy as indicated by the inner circle in Figure 1.

 Utility: Serve information needs of intended users.

 Feasibility: Be realistic, prudent, diplomatic,

and frugal.

 Propriety: Behave legally, ethically, and with due

regard for the welfare of those involved and those

affected.

 Accuracy: Evaluation is comprehensive and

grounded in the data.

(The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 1994)

CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation

It is critical to remember that

these standards apply to

all steps and phases of the

evaluation plan.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

THE PROCESS OF PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION PLANNING

Step 1: Engage Stakeholders

Deﬁning the Purpose in the Plan

Identifying the purpose of the evaluation is equally as important as identifying the end

users or stakeholders who will be part of a consultative group. These two aspects of the

evaluation serve as a foundation for evaluation planning, focus, design, and interpretation

and use of results. The purpose of an evaluation inﬂuences the identiﬁcation of stakeholders

for the evaluation, selection of speciﬁc evaluation questions, and the timing of evaluation

activities. It is critical that the program is transparent about intended purposes of the

evaluation. If evaluation results will be used to determine whether a program should be

continued or eliminated, stakeholders should know this up front. The stated purpose of the

evaluation drives the expectations and sets the boundaries for what the evaluation can and

cannot deliver. In any single evaluation, and especially in a multi-year plan, more than one

purpose may be identiﬁed; however, the primary purpose can inﬂuence resource allocation,

use, stakeholders included, and more. Purpose priorities in the plan can help establish the

link between purposes and intended use of evaluation information. While there are many

ways of stating the identiﬁed purpose(s) of the evaluation, they generally fall into three

primary categories:

1. Rendering judgments—accountability

2. Facilitating improvements—program development

3. Knowledge generation—transferability

(Patton, 2008)

An Evaluation Purpose identiﬁcation tool/worksheet is provided in Part II, Section

1.2 to assist you with determining intended purposes for your evaluation.

3 4 5 6

2 3 4 5 6

The ESW: Why should you engage stakeholders in

developing the evaluation plan?

A primary feature of an evaluation plan is the identiﬁcation of

an ESW, which includes members who have a stake or vested

interest in the evaluation ﬁndings, those who are the intended

users who can most directly beneﬁt from the evaluation

(Patton, 2008; Knowlton, Philips, 2009), as well as others who

have a direct or indirect interest in program implementation.

Engaging stakeholders in the ESW enhances intended users’

understanding and acceptance of the utility of evaluation

information. Stakeholders are much more likely to buy into and

support the evaluation if they are involved in the evaluation

process from the beginning. Moreover, to ensure that the

information collected, analyzed, and reported successfully

meets the needs of the program and stakeholders, it is best

to work with the people who will be using this information

throughout the entire process.

Engaging stakeholders in an evaluation can have many

beneﬁts. In general, stakeholders include people who will use

the evaluation results, support or maintain the program, or who

are affected by the program activities or evaluation results.

Stakeholders can help—



determine and prioritize key evaluation questions,

pretest data collection instruments,

facilitate data collection,

implement evaluation activities,

increase credibility of analysis and interpretation of

evaluation information, and

ensure evaluation results are used.

A Stakeholder Information Needs identiﬁcation exercise is

provided in Part II, Section 1.4 to assist you with determining

stakeholder information needs.

The ESW is comprised

of members who have a

stake or vested interest

in the evaluation

ﬁndings and can most

directly beneﬁt from

the evaluation. These

members represent

the primary users

of the evaluation

results and generally

act as a consultative

group throughout

the entire planning

process, as well as

the implementation

of the evaluation.

Additionally, members

sometimes facilitate the

implementation and/or

the dissemination of

results. Examples

include promoting

responses to surveys,

in-kind support

for interviews, and

interpretation meetings.

The members can even

identify resources to

support evaluation

efforts. The exact

nature and roles of

group members is up

to you, but roles should

be explicitly delineated

and agreed to in the

evaluation plan.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Several questions pertaining to stakeholders may arise among program staff, including:



Who are the program’s stakeholders?

How can we work with all

of our stakeholders?

How are stakeholders’ role(s) described in the plan?

This section will help programs address these and other questions about stakeholders and

their roles in the evaluation to guide them in writing an effective evaluation plan.

Who are the program’s stakeholders?

The ﬁrst question to answer when the program begins to write its evaluation plan is to

decide which stakeholders to include. Stakeholders are consumers of the evaluation results.

As consumers, they will have a vested interest in the results of the evaluation. In general,

stakeholders are those who are 1) interested in the program and would use evaluation

results, such as clients, community groups, and elected ofﬁcials; 2) those who are involved

in running the program, such as program staff, partners, management, the funding source,

and coalition members; and 3) those who are served by the program, their families, or the

general public. Others may also be included as these categories are not exclusive.

How do you use an ESW to develop an evaluation plan?

It is often said of public health programs, “everyone is your stakeholder.” Stakeholders will

often have diverse and, at times, competing interests. Given that a single evaluation cannot

answer all possible evaluation questions raised by diverse groups it will be critical that the

prioritization process is outlined in the evaluation plan and that the stakeholder groups

represented are identiﬁed.

It is suggested that the program enlist the aid of an ESW of 8 to 10 members that

represents the stakeholders who have the greatest stake or vested interest in the

evaluation (Centers for Disease Control, 2008). These stakeholders, or primary intended

users, will serve in a consultative role on all phases of the evaluation. As members of

the ESW, they will be an integral part of the entire evaluation process from the initial

design phase to interpretation, dissemination, and ensuring use. Stakeholders will play

a major role in the program’s evaluation, including consultation and possibly even data

collection, interpretation, and decision making based on the evaluation results. Sometimes

stakeholders can have competing interests that may come to light in the evaluation

planning process. It is important to explore agendas in the beginning and come to a shared

2 3 4 5 6

understanding of roles and responsibilities, as well as the purposes of the evaluation. It is

important that both the program and the ESW understand and agree to the importance and

role of the workgroup in this process.

In order to meaningfully engage your stakeholders, you will need to allow time for resolving

conﬂicts and coming to a shared understanding of the program and evaluation. However,

the time is worth the effort and leads toward a truly participatory, empowerment approach

to evaluation.

How are stakeholder’s roles described in the plan?

It is important to document information within your written evaluation plan based on the

context of your program. For the ESW to be truly integrated into the process, ideally, they

will be identiﬁed in the evaluation plan. The form this takes may vary based on program

needs. If it is important politically, a program might want to speciﬁcally name each member

of the workgroup, their afﬁliation, and speciﬁc role(s) on the workgroup. If a workgroup

is designed with rotating membership by group, then the program might just list the

groups represented. For example, a program might have a workgroup that is comprised

of members that represent funded programs (three members), non-funded programs

(one member), and national partners (four members) or a workgroup that is comprised

of members that represent state programs (two members), community programs (ﬁve

members), and external evaluation expertise (two members). Being transparent about

the role and purpose of the ESW can facilitate buy-in for evaluation results from those

who did not participate in the evaluation—especially in situations where the evaluation is

implemented by internal staff members. Another by-product of workgroup membership is

that stakeholders and partners increase their capacity for evaluation activities and increase

their ability to be savvy consumers of evaluation information. This can have downstream

impacts on stakeholder’s and partner’s programs such as program improvement and

timely, informed decision making. A stakeholder inclusion chart or table can be a useful tool

to include in your evaluation plan.

A Stakeholder Mapping exercise and engagement tool/worksheet is provided in Part II,

Sections 1.1 and 1.1b to assist you with planning for your evaluation workgroup.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

The process for stakeholder engagement should also be described in other steps related to

the development of the evaluation plan, which may include:

Step 2: Describe the program. A shared understanding of the program and what

the evaluation can and cannot deliver is essential to the success of implementation of

evaluation activities and use of evaluation results. The program and stakeholders must

agree upon the logic model, stage of development description, and purpose(s) of the

evaluation.

Step 3: Focus the evaluation. Understanding the purpose of the evaluation and the

rationale for prioritization of evaluation questions is critical for transparency and acceptance

of evaluation ﬁndings. It is essential that the evaluation address those questions of greatest

need to the program and priority users of the evaluation.

Step 4: Planning for gathering credible evidence. Stakeholders have to accept that

the methods selected are appropriate to the questions asked and that the data collected

are credible or the evaluation results will not be accepted or used. The market for and

acceptance of evaluation results begins in the planning phase. Stakeholders can inform the

selection of appropriate methods.

Step 5: Planning for conclusions. Stakeholders should inform the analysis

and interpretation of ﬁndings and facilitate the development of conclusions and

recommendations. This in turn will facilitate the acceptance and use of the evaluation

results by other stakeholder groups. Stakeholders can help determine if and when

stakeholder interpretation meetings should be conducted.

Step 6: Planning for dissemination and sharing of lessons learned. Stakeholders

should inform the translation of evaluation results into practical applications and actively

participate in the meaningful dissemination of lessons learned. This will facilitate ensuring

use of the evaluation. Stakeholders can facilitate the development of an intentional,

strategic communication and dissemination plan within the evaluation plan.

2 3 4 5 6

EVALUATION PLAN TIPS FOR STEP 1

 Identify intended users who can directly benefit from and use the evaluation

results.

 Identify a evaluation stakeholder workgroup of 8 to 10 members.

 Engage stakeholders throughout the plan development process as well as the

implementation of the evaluation.

 Identify intended purposes of the evaluation.

 Allow for adequate time to meaningfully engage the evaluation stakeholder

workgroup.

EVALUATION TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR STEP 1:

 1.1 Stakeholder Mapping Exercise

 1.1b Stakeholder Mapping Exercise Example

 1.2 Evaluation Purpose Exercise

 1.3 Stakeholder Inclusion and Communication Plan Exercise

 1.4 Stakeholder Information Needs

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR PLAN, YOU HAVE—



identified the primary users of the evaluation,

created the evaluation stakeholder workgroup, and

defined the purposes of the evaluation.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Step 2: Describe the Program

Shared Understanding of the Program

The next step in the CDC Framework and the evaluation

plan is to describe the program. A program description

clariﬁes the program’s purpose, stage of development,

activities, capacity to improve health, and implementation

context. A shared understanding of the program and what

the evaluation can and cannot deliver is essential to the

successful implementation of evaluation activities and

use of evaluation results. The program and stakeholders must agree upon the logic model,

stage of development description, and purpose(s) of the evaluation. This work will set the

stage for identifying the program evaluation questions, focusing the evaluation design, and

connecting program planning and evaluation.

Narrative Description

A narrative description helps ensure a full and complete shared understanding of the

program. A logic model may be used to succinctly synthesize the main elements of a

program. While a logic model is not always necessary, a program narrative is. The program

description is essential for focusing the evaluation design and selecting the appropriate

methods. Too often groups jump to evaluation methods before they even have a grasp

of what the program is designed to achieve or what the evaluation should deliver. Even

though much of this will have been included in your funding application, it is good practice

to revisit this description with your ESW to ensure a shared understanding and that the

program is still being implemented as intended. The description will be based on your

program’s objectives and context but most descriptions include at a minimum:



A statement of need to identify the health issue addressed

Inputs or program resources available to implement program activities

Program activities linked to program outcomes through theory or best practice

program logic

Stage of development of the program to reflect program maturity

Environmental context

within which a program is implemented

A program description clariﬁes

the program’s purpose, stage

of development, activities,

capacity to improve health,

and implementation context.

3 4 5 6

Logic Model

The description section often includes a logic model to visually show the link between

activities and intended outcomes. It is helpful to review the model with the ESW to ensure

a shared understanding of the model and that the logic model is still an accurate and

complete reﬂection of your program. The logic model should identify available resources

(inputs), what the program is doing (activities), and what you hope to achieve (outcomes).

You might also want to articulate any challenges you face (the program’s context or

environment). Figure 2 illustrates the basic components of a program logic model. As you

view the logic model from left to right, the further away from the intervention the more time

needed to observe outcomes. A major challenge in evaluating chronic disease prevention

and health promotion programs is one of attribution versus contribution and the fact that

distal outcomes may not occur in close proximity to the program interventions or policy

change. In addition, given the complexities of dynamic implementation environments,

realized impacts may differ from intended impacts. However, the rewards of understanding

the proximal and distal impacts of the program intervention often outweigh the challenges.

Logic model elements include:

Inputs: Resources necessary for program implementation

Activities: The actual interventions that the program implements in order to achieve health

outcomes

Outputs: Direct products obtained as a result of program activities

Outcomes (short-term, intermediate, long-term, distal): The changes, impacts, or results of

program implementation (activities and outputs)

Figure 2: Sample Logic Model

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Stage of Development

Another activity that will be needed to fully describe your program and prepare you to

focus your evaluation is an accurate assessment of the stage of development of the

program. The developmental stages that programs typically move through are planning,

implementation, and maintenance. In the example of a policy or environmental initiative,

the stages might look somewhat like this:

1. Assess environment and assets.

2. Policy or environmental change is in development.

3. The policy or environmental change has not yet been approved.

4. The policy or environmental change has been approved but not implemented.

5. The policy or environmental change has been in effect for less than 1 year.

6. The policy or environmental change has been in effect for 1 year or longer.

Steps 1 through 3 would typically fall under the planning stages, Steps 4 and 5 under

implementation, and Step 6 under maintenance. It is important to consider a developmental

model because programs are dynamic and evolve over time. Programs are seldom ﬁxed

in stone and progress is affected by many aspects of the political and economic context.

When it comes to evaluation, the stages are not always a “once-and-done” sequence of

events. When a program has progressed past the initial planning stage, it may experience

occasions where environment and asset assessment is still needed. Additionally, in a

multi-year plan, the evaluation should consider future evaluation plans to prepare datasets

and baseline information for evaluation projects considering more distal impacts and

outcomes. This is an advantage of completing a multi-year evaluation plan with your

ESW—preparation!

The stage of development conceptual model is complementary to the logic model. Figure

3.1 shows how general program evaluation questions are distinguished by both logic model

categories and the developmental stage of the program. This places evaluation within the

appropriate stage of program development (planning, implementation, and maintenance).

The model offers suggested starting points for asking evaluation questions within the

logic model while respecting the developmental stage of the program. This will prepare

the program and the workgroup to focus the evaluation appropriately based on program

maturity and priorities.

3 4 5 6

Figure 3.1: Stage of Development by Logic Model Category

Developmental Stage

Program

Planning

Program

Implementation

Program

Maintenance

Logic Model Category Inputs and Activities

Outputs and Short-term

Outcomes

Intermediate and

Long-term Outcomes

Figure 3.2: Stage of Development by Logic Model Category Example

Developmental Stage

Program

Planning

Program

Implementation

Program

Maintenance

Example:

Developmental

Stages When

Passing a Policy

Assess environment

and assets

Develop policy

The policy has not

yet been passed

The policy has been

passed but not

implemented

The policy has been

in effect for

less than 1 year

The policy has been

in effect for

1 year or longer

Example:

Questions Based

on Developmental

Stage When

Passing a Policy

Is there public support

for the policy?

What resources

will be needed

for implementation

of the policy?

Is there compliance

with the policy?

Is there continued

or increased public

support for the policy?

Are there major

exemptions or loopholes

to the policy?

What is the

health impact

of the policy?

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Key evaluation questions and needs for information will differ based on the stage of

development of the program. Additionally, the ability to answer key evaluation questions

will differ by stage of development of the program and stakeholders need to be aware

of what the evaluation can and cannot answer. For the above policy program example,

planning stage type questions might include:



Is there public support for the policy?

What resources will be needed for implementation of the policy?

Implementation stage questions might include:

Is there compliance with the policy?

Is there continued or increased public support for the policy?

Are there major exemptions or loopholes to the policy?

Maintenance stage questions might include:

What is the economic impact of the policy?

What is the health impact of the policy?

For more on stage of development and Smoke-Free Policies, please see the Evaluation

Toolkit for Smoke-Free Policies at

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/

secondhand_smoke/evaluation_toolkit/index.htm

A Program Stage of Development exercise is included in Part II, Section 2.1.

3 4 5 6

EVALUATION PLAN TIPS FOR STEP 2



A program description will facilitate a shared understanding of the program

between the program staff and the evaluation workgroup.

The description section often includes a logic model to visually show the link

between activities and intended outcomes.

The logic model should identify available resources (inputs), what the program is

doing (activities), and what you hope to achieve (outcomes).

A quality program evaluation is most effective when part of a larger conceptual

model of a program and its development.

EVALUATION TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR STEP 2:

2.1 Program Stage of Development Exercise

Evaluation Toolkit for Smoke-Free Policies at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/

basic_information/secondhand_smoke/evaluation_toolkit/index.htm

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR PLAN, YOU HAVE—

identified the primary users of the evaluation,

created the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

defined the purposes of the evaluation,

described the program, including context,

created a shared understanding of the program, and

identified the stage of development of the program.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Step 3: Focus the Evaluation

The amount of information you can gather concerning your program is potentially limitless.

Evaluations, however, are always restricted by the number of questions that can be

realistically asked and answered with quality, the methods that can be employed, the

feasibility of data collection, and the available resources. These are the issues at the

heart of Step 3 in the CDC framework: focusing the evaluation. The scope and depth of

any program evaluation is dependent on program and stakeholder priorities; available

resources, including ﬁnancial resources; staff and contractor availability; and amount of

time committed to the evaluation. The program staff should work together with the ESW

to determine the priority and feasibility of these questions and identify the uses of results

before designing the evaluation plan. In this part of the plan, you will apply the purposes

of the evaluation, its uses, and the program description to narrow the evaluation questions

and focus the evaluation for program improvement and decision making. In this step, you

may begin to notice the iterative process of developing the evaluation plan as you revisit

aspects of Step 1 and Step 2 to inform decisions to be made in Step 3.

Useful evaluations are not about special research interests or what is easiest to implement

but what information will be used by the program, stakeholders (including funders), and

decision makers to improve the program and make decisions. Establishing the focus of the

evaluation began with the identiﬁcation of the primary purposes and the primary intended

users of the evaluation. This process was further solidiﬁed through the selection of the ESW.

Developing the purposeful intention to use evaluation information and not just produce

another evaluation report starts at the very beginning with program planning and your

evaluation plan. You need to garner stakeholder interests and prepare them for evaluation

use. This step facilitates conceptualizing what the evaluation can and cannot deliver.

It is important to collaboratively focus the evaluation design with your ESW based on the

identiﬁed purposes, program context, logic model, and stage of development. Additionally,

issues of priority, feasibility, and efﬁciency need to be discussed with the ESW and those

responsible for the implementation of the evaluation. Transparency is particularly important

in this step. Stakeholders and users of the evaluation will need to understand why some

questions were identiﬁed as high priorities while others were rejected or delayed.

A Focus the Evaluation exercise is located in Part II, Section 3.1 of this workbook.

2 4 5 6

Developing Evaluation Questions

In this step, it is important to solicit evaluation questions from your various stakeholder

groups based on the stated purposes of the evaluation. The questions should then

be considered through the lens of the logic model/program description and stage of

development of the program. Evaluation questions should be checked against the logic

model and changes may be made to either the questions or the logic model, thus reinforcing

the iterative nature of the evaluation planning process. The stage of development discussed

in the previous chapter will facilitate narrowing the evaluation questions even further. It is

important to remember that a program may experience characteristics of several stages

simultaneously once past the initial planning stage. You may want to ask yourself this

question: How long has your program been in existence? If your program is in the planning

stage, it is unlikely that measuring distal outcomes will be useful for informing program

decision making. However, in a multi-year evaluation plan, you may begin to plan for and

develop the appropriate surveillance and evaluation systems and baseline information

needed to measure these distal outcomes (to be conducted in the ﬁnal initiative year) as

early as year 1. In another scenario, you may have a coalition that has been established for

10 years and is in maintenance stage. However, contextual changes may require you to

rethink the programmatic approach being taken. In this situation, you may want to do an

evaluation that looks at both planning stage questions (“Are the right folks at the table?” and

“Are they really engaged?”), as well as maintenance stage questions (“Are we having the

intended programmatic impact?”). Questions can be further prioritized based on the ESW

and program information needs as well as feasibility and efﬁciency issues.

Often if a funder requires an evaluation plan, you might notice text like this:

Submit with application a comprehensive written evaluation plan that includes activities

for both process and outcome measures.

Distinguishing between process and outcome evaluation can be similar to considering

the stage of development of your program against your program logic model. In general,

process evaluation focuses on the ﬁrst three boxes of the logic model: inputs, activities,

and outputs (CDC, 2008). This discussion with your ESW can further facilitate the focus of

your evaluation.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Process Evaluation Focus

Process evaluation enables you to describe and assess your

program’s activities and to link your progress to outcomes. This

is important because the link between outputs and short-term

outcomes remains an empirical question.

(CDC, 2008)

Outcome evaluation, as the term implies, focuses on the

last three outcome boxes of the logic model: short-term,

intermediate, and long-term outcomes.

Outcome Evaluation Focus

Outcome evaluation allows researchers to document health

and behavioral outcomes and identify linkages between an

intervention and quantiﬁable effects.

(CDC, 2008)

As a program can experience the characteristics of several

stages of development at once, so, too, a single evaluation

plan can and should include both process and outcome

evaluation questions at the same time. Excluding process

evaluation questions in favor of outcome evaluation questions

often eliminates the understanding of the foundation that supports outcomes.

As you and the ESW take ownership of the evaluation, you will ﬁnd that honing the

evaluation focus will likely solidify interest in the evaluation. Selection of ﬁnal evaluation

questions should balance what is most useful to achieving your program’s information

needs while also meeting your stakeholders’ information needs. Having stakeholders

participate in the selection of questions increases the likelihood of their securing evaluation

Process and

Outcome Evaluation

in Harmony in the

Evaluation Plan

As the program

can experience the

characteristics of

several stages of

development at once,

so, too, a single

evaluation plan can and

often does include both

process and outcome

evaluation questions.

Excluding process

evaluation questions

in favor of outcome

evaluation questions

often eliminates the

understanding of

the foundation that

supports outcomes.

Additional resources on

process and outcome

evaluation are identiﬁed

in the Resource Section

of this workbook.

2 4 5 6

resources, providing access to data, and using the results. This process increases

“personal ownership” of the evaluation by the ESW. However, given that resources are

limited, the evaluation cannot answer all potential questions.

The ultimate goal is to focus the evaluation design such that it reﬂects the program stage

of development, selected purpose of the evaluation, uses, and questions to be answered.

Transparency related to the selection of evaluation questions is critical to stakeholder

acceptance of evaluation results and possibly even for continued support of the program.

Even with an established multi-year plan, Step 3 should be revisited with your ESW

annually (or more often if needed) to determine if priorities and feasibility issues still hold

for the planned evaluation activities. This highlights the dynamic nature of the evaluation

plan. Ideally, your plan should be intentional and strategic by design and generally cover

multiple years for planning purposes. But the plan is not set in stone. It should also be

ﬂexible and adaptive. It is ﬂexible because resources and priorities change and adaptive

because opportunities and programs change. You may have a new funding opportunity

and a short-term program added to your overall program. This may require insertion of a

smaller evaluation plan speciﬁc to the newly funded project, but with the overall program

evaluation goals and objectives in mind. Or, resources could be cut for a particular program

requiring a reduction in the evaluation budget. The planned evaluation may have to be

reduced or delayed. Your evaluation plan should be ﬂexible and adaptive to accommodate

these scenarios while still focusing on the evaluation goals and objectives of the program

and the ESW.

Budget and Resources

Discussion of budget and resources (ﬁnancial and human) that can be allocated to the

evaluation will likely be included in your feasibility discussion. In the Best Practices for

Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs (2007), it is recommended that at least 10%

of your total program resources be allocated to surveillance and program evaluation.

The questions and subsequent methods selected will have a direct relationship to the

ﬁnancial resources available, evaluation team member skills, and environmental constraints

(e.g., you might like to do an in-person home interview of the target population, but the

neighborhood is not one that interviewers can visit safely). Stakeholder involvement may

facilitate advocating for the resources needed to implement the evaluation necessary

to answer priority questions. However, sometimes, you might not have the resources

necessary to fund the evaluation questions you would like to answer most. A thorough

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

discussion of feasibility and recognition of real constraints will facilitate a shared

understanding of what the evaluation can and cannot deliver. The process of selecting

the appropriate methods to answer the priority questions and discussing feasibility and

efﬁciency is iterative. Steps 3, 4, and 5 in planning the evaluation will often be visited

concurrently in a back-and-forth progression until the group comes to consensus.

EVALUATION PLAN TIPS FOR STEP 3

It is not possible or appropriate to evaluate every aspect or specific initiative of a

program every year.

Evaluation focus is context dependent and related to the purposes of the

evaluation, primary users, stage of development, logic model, program priorities,

and feasibility.

Evaluation questions should be checked against the logic model and stage of

development of the program.

The iterative nature of plan development is reinforced in this step.

EVALUATION TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR STEP 3:

3.1 Focus the Evaluation Exercise

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR PLAN, YOU HAVE—

identified the primary users of the evaluation,

created the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

defined the purposes of the evaluation,

described the program, including context,

created a shared understanding of the program,

identified the stage of development of the program, and

prioritized evaluation questions and discussed feasibility,

budget, and resource issues.



2 3 5 6

Step 4: Planning for Gathering Credible Evidence

Now that you have solidiﬁed the focus of your evaluation and identiﬁed the questions to

be answered, it will be necessary to select the appropriate methods that ﬁt the evaluation

questions you have selected. Sometimes the approach to evaluation planning is guided

by a favorite method(s) and the evaluation is forced to ﬁt that method. This could lead

to incomplete or inaccurate answers to evaluation questions.

Ideally, the evaluation questions inform the methods. If you have

followed the steps in the workbook, you have collaboratively

chosen the evaluation questions with your ESW that will provide

you with information that will be used for program improvement

and decision making. This is documented and transparent

in your evaluation plan. Now is the time to select the most

appropriate method to ﬁt the evaluation questions and describe

the selection process in your plan. Additionally, it is prudent to

identify in your plan a timeline and the roles and responsibilities

of those overseeing the evaluation activity implementation

whether it is program or stakeholder staff.

To accomplish this step in your evaluation plan, you will need

to—



keep in mind the purpose, logic model/program

description, stage of development of the program,

evaluation questions, and what the evaluation can and

cannot deliver,

confirm that the method(s) fits the question(s); there

are a multitude of options, including but not limited

to qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, multiple

methods, naturalistic inquiry, experimental, quasi-

experimental,

think about what will constitute credible evidence for

stakeholders or users,

identify sources of evidence (e.g., persons, documents,

observations, administrative databases, surveillance systems) and appropriate

methods for obtaining quality (i.e., reliable and valid) data,

identify roles and responsibilities along with timelines to ensure the project remains

on-time and on-track, and

remain flexible and adaptive, and as always, transparent.

Fitting the Method

to the Evaluation

Question(s)

The method or

methods chosen need

to ﬁt the evaluation

question(s) and not be

chosen just because

they are a favored

method or speciﬁcally

quantitative or

experimental in nature.

A misﬁt between

evaluation question

and method can and

often does lead to

incomplete or even

inaccurate information.

The method needs to

be appropriate for the

question in accordance

with the Evaluation

Standards.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 5 6

Choosing the Appropriate Methods

It is at this point that the debate between qualitative and quantitative methods usually

arises. It is not that one method is right and one method is wrong, but which method or

combination of methods will obtain answers to the evaluation questions.

Some options that may point you in the direction of qualitative methods:



You are planning and want to assess what to consider when designing a program or

initiative. You want to identify elements that are likely to be effective.

You are looking for feedback while a program or initiative is in its early stages and

want to implement a process evaluation. You want to understand approaches to

enhance the likelihood that an initiative (e.g., policy or environmental change) will be

adopted.

Something isn’t working as expected and you need to know why. You need to

understand the facilitators and barriers to implementation of a particular initiative.

You want to truly understand how a program is implemented on the ground and

need to develop a model or theory of the program or initiative.

Some options that may point you in the direction of quantitative methods:

You are looking to identify current and future movement or trends of a particular

phenomenon or initiative.

You want to consider standardized outcome across programs. You need to monitor

outputs and outcomes of an initiative. You want to document the impact of a

particular initiative.

You want to know the costs associated with the implementation of a particular

intervention.

You want to understand what standardized outcomes are connected with a

particular initiative and need to develop a model or theory of the program or initiative.

Or the most appropriate method may be a mixed methods approach wherein the qualitative

data provide value, understanding, and application to the quantitative data. It is beyond

the scope of this workbook to address the full process of deciding what method(s) are

most appropriate for which types of evaluations questions. The question is not whether to

apply qualitative or quantitative methods but what method is most appropriate to answer

the evaluation question chosen. Additional resources on this are provided in the resource

section in Part II.

2 3 5 6

Credible Evidence

The evidence you gather to support the

answers to your evaluation questions

should be seen as credible by the

primary users of the evaluation. The

determination of what is credible is

often context dependent and can vary

across programs and stakeholders. This

determination is naturally tied to the

evaluation design, implementation, and

standards adhered to for data collection,

analysis, and interpretation. Best

practices for your program area and the

evaluation standards included in the CDC

Framework (Utility, Feasibility, Propriety,

and Accuracy) and espoused by the

American Evaluation Association (http://www.eval.org) will facilitate this discussion with your

ESW. This discussion allows for stakeholder input as to what methods are most appropriate

given the questions and context of your evaluation. As with all the steps, transparency

is important to the credibility discussion as well as the documentation of limitation of

the evaluation methods or design. This facilitates the likelihood that results will be more

acceptable to stakeholders and strengthens the value of the evaluation and likelihood

the information will be used for program improvement and decision making. The value of

stakeholder inclusion throughout the development of your evaluation plan is prominent in

Step 4. More information on the standards can be found in the resources section.

Measurement

If the method selected includes indicators and/or performance measures, the discussion

of what measures to include is critical and often lengthy. This discussion is naturally tied to

the data credibility conversation, and there is often a wide range of possible indicators or

performance measures that can be selected for any one evaluation question. You will want

to consult best practices publications for your program area and even other programs in

neighboring states or locales. The expertise that your ESW brings to the table can facilitate

this discussion. The exact selection of indicators or performance measures is beyond the

scope of this workbook. Resource information is included in Part II of this workbook, such

as the Key Outcome Indicators for Evaluating Comprehensive Tobacco Programs guide.

CDC’s Framework for Program Evaluation

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 5 6

Data Sources and Methods

As emphasized already, it is important to select the method(s) most appropriate to answer

the evaluation question. The types of data needed should be reviewed and considered for

credibility and feasibility. Based on the methods chosen, you may need a variety of input,

such as case studies, interviews, naturalistic inquiry, focus groups, standardized indicators,

and surveys. You may need to consider multiple data sources and the triangulation of data

for reliability and validity of your information. Data may come from existing sources (e.g.,

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, Pregnancy

Risk Assessment Monitoring System) or gathered from program-speciﬁc sources (either

existing or new). You most likely will need to consider the establishment of surveillance and

evaluation systems for continuity and the ability to successfully conduct useful evaluations.

The form of the data (either quantitative or qualitative) and speciﬁcs of how these data will

be collected must be deﬁned, agreed upon as credible, and transparent. There are strengths

and limitations to any approach, and they should be considered carefully with the help of

your ESW. For example, the use of existing data sources may help reduce costs, maximize

the use of existing information, and facilitate comparability with other programs, but may

not provide program speciﬁcity. Additionally, existing sources of data may not meet the

question-method appropriateness criteria.

It is beyond the scope of this workbook to discuss in detail the complexities of what

appropriate method(s) or data sources to choose. It is important to remember that not

all methods ﬁt all evaluation questions and often a mixed-methods approach is the best

option for a comprehensive answer to a particular evaluation question. This is often where

you need to consult with your evaluation experts for direction on matching method to

question. More information can be found through the resources listed in Part II. Note that

all data collected needs to have a clear link to the associated evaluation question and

anticipated use to reduce unnecessary burden on the respondent and stakeholders. It is

important to revisit data collection efforts over the course of a multi-year evaluation plan to

examine utility against the burden on respondents and stakeholders. Finally, this word of

caution—it is not enough to have deﬁned measures. Quality assurance procedures must be

put into place so that data is collected in a reliable way, coded and entered correctly, and

checked for accuracy. A quality assurance plan should be included in your evaluation plan.

2 3 5 6

Roles and Responsibilities

Writing an evaluation plan will not ensure that the evaluation is implemented on time, as

intended, or within budget. A critical piece of the evaluation plan is to identify the roles and

responsibilities of program staff, evaluation staff, contractors, and stakeholders from the

beginning of the planning process. This information should be kept up to date throughout

the implementation of the evaluation. Stakeholders must clearly understand their role in

the evaluation implementation. Maintaining an involved, engaged network of stakeholders

throughout the development and implementation of the plan will increase the likelihood that

their participation serves the needs of the evaluation. An evaluation implementation work

plan is as critical to the success of the evaluation as a program work plan is to the success

of the program. This is even more salient when multiple organizations are involved and/or

multiple evaluation activities occur simultaneously.

Evaluation Plan Methods Grid

One tool that is particularly useful in your evaluation plan is an evaluation plan methods

grid. Not only is this tool helpful to align evaluation questions with methods, indicators,

performance measures, data sources, roles, and responsibilities but it can facilitate a

shared understanding of the overall evaluation plan with stakeholders. The tool can take

many forms and should be adapted to ﬁt your speciﬁc evaluation and context.

Figure 4.1: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data Source Frequency Responsibility

What process

leads to

implementation

of policy?

Interview

description of

process steps,

actions, and

strategies

Case study,

interviews,

document

reviews etc.

Site visits and

reports

Pre and post

funding period

Contractor

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 5 6

Figure 4.2: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example

Evaluation Question Indicators/ Performance

Measure

Potential Data Source

(Existing/New)

Comments

What media promotion

activities are being

implemented?

Description of promotional

activities and their reach

of targeted populations,

dose, intensity

Focus group feedback

Target Rating Point and

Gross Rating Point data

sources

Enrollment data

Budget

The evaluation budget discussion was most likely initially started during Step 3 when the

team was discussing the focus of the evaluation and feasibility issues. It is now time to

develop a complete evaluation project budget based on the decisions made about the

evaluation questions, methods, roles, and responsibilities of stakeholders. A complete

budget is necessary to ensure that the evaluation project is fully funded and can deliver

upon promises.

An Evaluation Plan Methods Grid exercise and more examples can be found in Part II,

Section 4.1.

An Evaluation Budget exercise and more examples can be found in Part II, Section 4.2.

2 3 5 6

EVALUATION PLAN TIPS FOR STEP 4

 Select the best method(s) that answers the evaluation question. This can often

involve a mixed-methods approach.

 Gather the evidence that is seen as credible by the primary users of the

evaluation.

 Define implementation roles and responsibilities for program staff, evaluation

staff, contractors, and stakeholders.

 Develop an evaluation plan methods grid to facilitate a shared understanding of

the overall evaluation plan, and the timeline for evaluation activities.

EVALUATION TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR STEP 4:

 4.1 Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Exercise

 4.2 Evaluation Budget Exercise

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR PLAN, YOU HAVE—

 identified the primary users of the evaluation,

 created the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

 defined the purposes of the evaluation,

 described the program, including context,

 created a shared understanding of the program,

 identified the stage of development of the program,

 prioritized evaluation questions and discussed feasibility

issues,

 discussed issues related to credibility of data sources,

 identified indicators and/or performance measures linked to

chosen evaluation questions,

 determined implementation roles and responsibilities

for program staff, evaluation staff, contractors, and

stakeholders, and

 developed an evaluation plan methods grid.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 6

Step 5: Planning for Conclusions

Justifying conclusions includes analyzing the information you collect, interpreting, and

drawing conclusions from your data. This step is needed to turn the data collected into

meaningful, useful, and accessible information. This is often when programs incorrectly

assume they no longer need the ESW integrally involved in decision making and instead

look to the “experts” to complete the analyses and interpretation. However, engaging the

ESW in this step is critical to ensuring the meaningfulness, credibility, and acceptance of

evaluation ﬁndings and conclusions. Actively meeting with stakeholders and discussing

preliminary ﬁndings helps to guide the interpretation phase. In fact, stakeholders often have

novel insights or perspectives to guide interpretation that evaluation staff may not have,

leading to more thoughtful conclusions.

Planning for analysis and interpretation is directly tied to the timetable begun in Step 4.

Errors or omissions in planning this step can create serious delays in the ﬁnal evaluation

report and may result in missed opportunities if the report has been timed to correspond

with signiﬁcant events. Often, groups fail to appreciate the resources, time, and expertise

required to clean and analyze data. This applies to both qualitative and quantitative data.

Some programs focus their efforts on collecting data, but never fully appreciate the

time it takes to work with the data to prepare for analysis, interpretation, feedback, and

conclusions. These programs are suffering from “D.R.I.P.”, that is, programs that are “Data

Rich but Information Poor.” Survey data remains “in boxes” or interviews are never fully

explored for theme identiﬁcation.

After planning for the analysis of the data, you have to prepare to examine the results

to determine what the data actually say about your program. These results should be

interpreted with the goals of your program in mind, the social/political context of the

program, and the needs of the stakeholders.

Moreover, it is critical that your plans include time for interpretation and review by

stakeholders to increase transparency and validity of your process and conclusions.

The emphasis here is on justifying conclusions, not just analyzing data. This is a step

that deserves due diligence in the planning process. The propriety standard plays a role

in guiding the evaluator’s decisions on how to analyze and interpret data to assure that

all stakeholder values are respected in the process of drawing conclusions (Program

Evaluation Standards, 1994). That is to say, who needs to be involved in the evaluation for

it to be ethical. This may include one or more stakeholder interpretation meetings to review

interim data and further reﬁne conclusions. A note of caution, as a stakeholder driven

process, there is often pressure to reach beyond the evidence when drawing conclusions.

2 3 4 6

It is the responsibility of the evaluator and the ESW to ensure that conclusions are drawn

directly from the evidence. This is a topic that should be discussed with the ESW in the

planning stages along with reliability and validity issues and possible sources of biases.

If possible and appropriate, triangulation of data should be considered and remedies to

threats to the credibility of the data should be addressed as early as possible.

A Stakeholder Interpretation Meeting exercise is found in Part II, Section 5.1.

EVALUATION PLAN TIPS FOR STEP 5

 The planning for conclusions step is needed to turn the data collected into

meaningful, useful, and accessible information for action.

 Including your stakeholder group in this step is directly tied to the previous

discussion on credibility and acceptance of data and conclusions.

 Errors in planning in this step can create serious delays in the final evaluation

report and may result in missed opportunities if the report has been timed to

correspond to significant events.

 It is critical that your plans include time for interpretation and review from

stakeholders (including your critics) to increase transparency and validity of your

process and conclusions.

EVALUATION TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR STEP 5:

 5.1 Stakeholder Interpretation Meeting Exercise

 Western Michigan University, The Evaluation Center at

http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 6

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR PLAN, YOU HAVE—

 identified the primary users of the evaluation,

 created the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

 defined the purposes of the evaluation,

 described the program, including context,

 created a shared understanding of the program,

 identified the stage of development of the program,

 prioritized evaluation questions and discussed feasibility issues

 discussed issues related to credibility of data sources,

 identified indicators and/or performance measures linked to

chosen evaluation questions,

 determined implementation roles and responsibilities for

program staff, evaluation staff, contractors, and stakeholders,

 developed an evaluation plan methods grid,

 addressed possible threats to the credibility of your data, and

 developed a timetable that includes cleaning and analyzing

data as well as stakeholder interpretation sessions.

2 3 4 5

Step 6: Planning for Dissemination and Sharing of Lessons

Learned

Another often overlooked step in the planning stage is Step 6, planning for use of

evaluation results, sharing of lessons learned, communication, and dissemination of results.

It is often felt that this step will just take care of itself once the report is published. In reality,

planning for use begins with Step 1 and the consideration of stakeholder involvement.

Evaluation use is likely when end use is planned for and built into the six steps in your

evaluation plan. Planning for use is directly tied to the identiﬁed purposes of the evaluation

and program and stakeholder priorities. Your decision to

include the ESW throughout the plan development stage

begins the process of building a market for your evaluation

results and increases the chances that results will be

used for program improvement and decision making. Use

of evaluation is most likely to occur when evaluation is

collaborative and participatory, a process that begins in

the planning phase. This step is directly tied to the utility standard in evaluation. Is it ethical

to consume program and stakeholder resources if evaluation results are never used? The

resources expended and the information gained from evaluations are too important to just

hope that evaluation results will be used. Use must be planned for, nurtured, and included

in the evaluation plan from the very beginning.

Based on the uses for your evaluation, you will need to determine who should learn

about the ﬁndings and how they should learn the information. Typically, this is where the

ﬁnal report is published, and most assume the evaluation is done. However, if personal

ownership of evaluation results is inserted here, such as through collaboration with an

ESW, the impact and value of the evaluation results will increase (Patton, 2008). The

program and the ESW take personal responsibility for getting the results to the right

people and in a usable, targeted format. This absolutely must be planned for and included

in the evaluation plan. It will be important to consider the audience in terms of timing,

style, tone, message source, method and format. Remember that stakeholders will not

suddenly become interested in your product just because you produced a report. You must

sufﬁciently prepare the market for the product and for use of the evaluation results (Patton,

2008). Writing a straightforward and comprehensive evaluation report can help insure use.

Use must be planned for,

cultivated, and included in the

evaluation plan from the very

beginning

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5

Communication and Dissemination Plans

Your evaluation results may not reach the intended audience with the intended impact just

because they are published. An intentional communication and dissemination approach

should be included in your evaluation plan. As previously stated, the planning stage is

the time for the program and the ESW to begin to think about the best way to share the

lessons you will learn from the evaluation. The communication-dissemination phase of

the evaluation is a two-way process designed to support use of the evaluation results for

program improvement and decision making. In order to achieve this outcome, a program

must translate evaluation results into practical applications and must systematically

distribute the information through a variety of audience-speciﬁc strategies. In order to be

effective, dissemination systems need to—



orient toward the needs of the user, incorporating the types and levels of

information needed into the forms and language preferred by the user,

use varied dissemination methods, including written information, electronic media,

and person-to-person contact,

include both proactive and reactive dissemination channels—that is, incorporate

information that users have identified as important and information that users may

not know to request but that they are likely to need,

establish clear channels for users to make their needs and priorities known to the

disseminating agency,

recognize and provide for the “natural flow” of the four levels of dissemination

that have been identified as leading to utilization: spread, exchange, choice, and

implementation,

draw upon existing resources, relationships, and networks to the maximum extent

possible while building new resources as needed by users,

include effective quality control mechanisms to assure that information included is

accurate, relevant, and representative,

incorporate sufficient information so that the user can determine the basic principles

underlying specific practices and the settings in which these practices may be used

most productively, and

establish linkages to resources that may be needed to implement the information—

usually referred to as technical assistance.

(National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, 2001)

2 3 4 5

The ﬁrst step in writing an effective communications plan is to deﬁne your communication

goals and objectives. Given that the communication objectives will be tailored to each

target audience, you need to consider with your ESW who the primary audience(s) are (e.g.,

the funding agency, the general public, or some other group). Some questions to ask about

the potential audience(s) are the following:



Who is a priority?

What do they already know about the topic?

What is critical for them to know?

Where do they prefer to receive their information?

What is their preferred format?

What language level is appropriate?

Within what time frame are evaluation updates and reports necessary?

Once the goals, objectives, and target audiences of the communication plan are established,

you should consider the best way to reach the intended audience by considering which

communication/dissemination tools will best serve your goals and objectives. Will the

program use newsletters/fact sheets, oral presentations, visual displays, videos, storytelling,

and/or press releases? Carefully consider the best tools to use by getting feedback from

your ESW, by learning from others’ experiences, and by reaching out to target audiences

to gather their preferences. An excellent resource to facilitate creative techniques for

reporting evaluation results is Torres, Preskill, and Pionteck’s (2004) Evaluation Strategies for

Communicating and Reporting.

Complete the communication planning step by establishing a timetable for sharing

evaluation ﬁndings and lessons learned. Figure 5 can be useful in helping the program to

chart the written communications plan:

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Figure 5: Communication Plan Table

Target Audience

(Priority)

Goals Tools Timetable

Program Implementation

Team

Inform them in real time

about what’s working well

and what needs to be

quickly adjusted during

implementation

Monthly meetings and

brieﬁng documents

Monthly

Program Stakeholders Promote program progress Success stories Annually

Funding Decision Makers Continue and/or enhance

program funding

Executive summary;

Targeted program briefs

Within 90 days of

conclusion of funding

It is important to note that you do not have to wait until the ﬁnal evaluation report is written

in order to share your evaluation results. A system for sharing interim results to facilitate

program course corrections and decision making should be included in your evaluation

plan. Additionally, success stories that focus on upstream, midstream, and downstream

successes can facilitate program growth and visibility. A success story can show

movement in your program’s progress over time and demonstrate its value and impact. It

can serve as a vehicle for engaging potential participants, partners, and funders especially

when it takes time for a program to mature to long-term outcomes (Lavinghouze, Price,

Smith, 2007).

The Communicating Results exercise can be found in Part II, Section 6.2 and can

assist you with tracking your audiences and ways to reach them. More information on

developing a communication and dissemination plan can be found in the Resource

Section in Part II of this workbook.

2 3 4 5

Ensuring Use

Communicating results is not enough to ensure use of evaluation results and lessons

learned. The evaluation team and program staff needs to proactively take action to

encourage use and wide dissemination of the information gleaned through the evaluation

project. It is helpful to strategize with stakeholders early in the evaluation process about

how your program will ensure that ﬁndings are used to support program improvement

efforts and inform decision making. Program staff and the ESW must take personal

responsibility for guaranteeing the dissemination of and application of evaluation results.

There are several practical steps you can include in your evaluation plan to help ensure

evaluation ﬁndings are used. These steps might contain plans to—



conduct regularly scheduled meetings with evaluation stakeholders as a forum

for sharing evaluation findings in real time and developing recommendations for

program improvement based on evaluation findings,

review evaluation findings and recommendations in regularly scheduled staff

meetings,

engage stakeholders in identifying ways they can apply evaluation findings to

improve their programs,

coordinate, document, and monitor efforts program staff and partners are making to

implement improvement recommendations, and

develop multiple, tailored evaluation reports to address specific stakeholders

information needs.

One Last Note

The impact of the evaluation results can reach far beyond the evaluation report. If

stakeholders are involved throughout the process, communication and participation may be

enhanced. If an effective feedback loop is in place, program improvement and outcomes

may be improved. If a strong commitment to sharing lessons learned and success stories

is in place, then other programs may beneﬁt from the information gleaned through the

evaluation process. Changes in thinking, understanding, program, and organization may

stem from thoughtful evaluative processes (Patton, 2008). Use of evaluation results and

impacts beyond the formal ﬁndings of the evaluation report start with the planning process

and the transparent evaluation plan.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

EVALUATION PLAN TIPS FOR STEP 6

 Planning for use begins with Step 1 and the consideration of stakeholder

involvement.

 Evaluation use is likeliest when end use is planned for and built into the six steps

in your evaluation plan.

 Use of evaluation is most likely to occur when evaluation is collaborative and

participatory, a process that begins in the planning phase.

 An intentional communication and dissemination plan should be included in your

evaluation plan.

 The planning stage is the time for the program to begin to think about the best

way to share the lessons you will learn from the evaluation.

 In addition to your final report, you will want to tailor reports to highlight specific

findings for selected groups of stakeholders. Consider the audience in terms

of timing, style, tone, message source, method, and format. Planning for these

reports begins with your evaluation plan.

EVALUATION TOOLS AND RESOURCES FOR STEP 6:

 6.1 Reporting Checklist Exercise

 6.2 Communicating Results Exercise

 Western Michigan University, The Evaluation Center at

http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists

2 3 4 5

AT THIS POINT IN YOUR PLAN, YOU HAVE—

 identified the primary users of the evaluation,

 created the evaluation stakeholder workgroup,

 defined the purposes of the evaluation,

 described the program, including context,

 created a shared understanding of the program,

 identified the stage of development of the program,

 prioritized evaluation questions and discussed feasibility issues,

 discussed issues related to credibility of data sources,

 identified indicators and/or performance measures linked to

chosen evaluation questions,

 determined implementation roles and responsibilities

for program staff, evaluation staff, contractors, and

stakeholders,

 developed a work plan methods grid,

 addressed possible threats to the credibility of your data,

 developed a timetable that includes cleaning and analyzing

data as well as stakeholder interpretation sessions,

 developed an intentional, strategic communications and

dissemination plan, and

 planned for various audience-specific evaluation reports,

presentations, and publications.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER

Thus far we have walked through the six steps of the CDC Framework for Program

Evaluation in Public Health to facilitate programs and their evaluation workgroups as

they think through the process of planning evaluation activities. We have described the

components of an evaluation plan and details to consider while developing the plan in the

context of the CDC Framework. In this section, we brieﬂy recap information that you should

consider when developing your evaluation plan.

Increasingly, a multi-year evaluation plan is required as part of applications for funding

or as part of program work plans. An evaluation plan is more than a column added to

the program work plan for indicators. These plans should be based on stated program

objectives and include activities to assess progress on those objectives. Plans should

include both process and outcome evaluation activities.

As previously discussed, an evaluation plan is a written document that describes how you

will monitor and evaluate your program, so that you will be able to describe the “What,”

the “How,” and the “Why It Matters” for your program. The “What” reﬂects the description

and accomplishments of your program. Your plan serves to clarify the program’s purpose,

anticipated expectations, and outcomes. The “How” answers the question, “How did you do

it?” and assesses how a program is being implemented and if the program is operating with

ﬁdelity to the program protocol. Additionally, the “How” answers program course-corrections

that should be made during implementation. The “Why It Matters” represents how your

program makes a difference and the impact is has on the public health issue being addressed.

Being able to demonstrate that your program has made a difference can be critical to program

sustainability. An evaluation plan is similar to a program work plan in that it is a roadmap

and is used to guide the planning of activities used to assess the processes and outcomes

of a program. An effective evaluation plan is a dynamic tool that can change over time, as

needed, to reﬂect program changes and priorities. An evaluation plan creates directions for

accomplishing program goals and objectives by linking evaluation and program planning.

Ideally, program staff, evaluation staff, and the ESW will

be developing the evaluation plan while the program

is developing the program work plan. Developing the

evaluation plan simultaneously with the program work

plan allows program staff and stakeholders to realistically

think through the process and resources needed for the

evaluation. It facilitates the link between program planning and evaluation and ensures creating

a feedback loop of evaluation information for program improvement and decision making.

Ideally, program staff and the

ESW will develop the evaluation

plan while developing the

program work plan.

Often, programs have multiple funding sources and thus may have multiple evaluation

plans. Ideally, your program will develop one overarching evaluation plan that consolidates

all activities and provides an integrated view of program assessment. Then, as additional

funding sources are sought and activities added, those evaluation activities can be

enfolded into the larger logic model and evaluation scheme.

The basic elements of an evaluation plan include:



Title page

Question overview

Intended use and users

Program description

Evaluation focus

Methods

Analysis and interpretation plan

Use, dissemination, and sharing plan

However, your plan should be adapted to your speciﬁc evaluation needs and context.

Additionally, it is important to remember that your evaluation plan is a living, dynamic

document designed to adapt to the complexities of the

environment within which your

programs are implemented. The plan is a guide to facilitate intentional decisions. If changes

are made, they are documented and done intentionally with a fully informed ESW.

Title page: This page provides easily identiﬁable program name, dates covered, and

possibly basic focus of the evaluation.

Question overview: In an evaluation plan, this is an overview of the evaluation questions

for ease of reference, similar to the executive summary in a ﬁnal evaluation report.

Intended use and users:

This section fosters transparency about the purposes of the

evaluation and who will have access to evaluation results. It is important to build a market

for evaluation results from the beginning. This section identiﬁes the primary intended users

and the ESW and describes the purposes and intended uses of the evaluation.

Program description: This section provides a shared understanding of the description of

your program and a basis for the evaluation questions and prioritization. This section will

usually include a logic model and a description of the stage of development of the program

in addition to a narrative description. This section can also facilitate completing the

introduction section for a ﬁnal report or publication from the evaluation. This section might

also include a reference section or bibliography related to your program description.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Evaluation focus: There are never enough resources or time to answer every evaluation

question. Prioritization must be collaboratively accomplished based on the logic model/

program description, the stage of development of the program, program and stakeholder

priorities, intended uses of the evaluation, and feasibility issues. This section will clearly

delineate the criteria for evaluation prioritization and will include a discussion of feasibility

and efﬁciency.

Methods: This section covers indicators and performance measures, data sources and

selection of appropriate methods, roles and responsibilities, and credibility of evaluation

information. This section will include a discussion about appropriate methods to ﬁt the

evaluation question. An evaluation plan methods grid is a useful tool for transparency

and planning.

Analysis and interpretation plan: Who will get to see interim results? Will there be a

stakeholder interpretation meeting or meetings? It is critical that your plans allow time for

interpretation and review from stakeholders (including your critics) to increase transparency

and validity of your process and conclusions. The emphasis here is on justifying

conclusions, not just analyzing data. This is a step that deserves due diligence in the

planning process. The propriety standard plays a role in guiding the evaluator’s decisions

in how to analyze and interpret data to assure that all stakeholder values are respected in

the process of drawing conclusions. A timeline that transparently demonstrates inclusion of

stakeholders facilitates acceptance of evaluation results and use of information.

Use, dissemination, and sharing plan: Plans for use of evaluation results,

communications, and dissemination methods should be discussed from the beginning. This

is a critical but often neglected section of the evaluation plan. A communication plan that

displays target audience, goals, tools, and a timeline is helpful for this section.

The exercises, worksheets, and tools found in Part II of this workbook are to help you

think through the concepts discussed in Part I. These are only examples. Remember, your

evaluation plan(s) will vary based on program and stakeholder priorities and context.

REFERENCES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comprehensive Cancer Control Branch

Program Evaluation Toolkit. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease

Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, 2010

[accessed 2011 Oct 19].

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Framework for Program Evaluation in Public

Health. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 1999; 48(NoRR-11):1–40.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Introduction to Process Evaluation in Tobacco

Use Prevention and Control. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention

and Health Promotion, Ofﬁce on Smoking and Health, 2008 [accessed 2011 Oct 19].

Knowlton LW, Philips CC. The Logic Model Guidebook: Better Strategies for Great Results.

Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 2009.

Lavinghouze R, Price AW, Smith K-A. The Program Success Story: A Valuable Tool for

Program Evaluation. Health Promotion Practice 2007; 8(4):323–331.

National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Developing an Effective

Dissemination Plan. Austin (TX): Southwest Educational Developmental Laboratory,

2001[accessed 2011 Oct 24].

Patton MQ. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage

Publications, 2008.

Sandars JR, The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. The Program

Evaluation Standards. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 1994.

Torres R, Preskill H, Piontek ME. Evaluation Strategies for Communicating and Reporting.

2nd ed. Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage Publications, 2004.

Western Michigan University. The Evaluation Center. Evaluation Checklists

[accessed 2011 Oct 19].

Worthen BR, Sanders JR, Fitzpatrick JL. Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and

Practical Guidelines. 2nd ed. New York: Addison Wesley Logman, 1997.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Part II: Exercise, Worksheets, and Tools

Step 1: 1.1 Stakeholder Mapping Exercise ...................................................................................... 45

Step 1: 1.2 Evaluation Purpose Exercise

......................................................................................... 50

Step 1: 1.3 Stakeholder Inclusion and Communication Plan Exercise

.............................................. 53

Step 1: 1.4 Stakeholder Information Needs Exercise ............................................................................ 55

Step 2: 2.1 Program Stage of Development Exercise ...................................................................... 57

Step 3: 3.1 Focus the Evaluation Exercise

....................................................................................... 62

Step 4: 4.1 Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Exercise

......................................................................... 68

Step 4: 4.2 Evaluation Budget Exercise

........................................................................................... 73

Step 5: 5.1 Stakeholder Interpretation Meeting Exercise

................................................................. 76

Step 6: 6.1 Reporting Checklist Exercise

........................................................................................ 80

Tools and Templates: Checklist for Ensuring Effective Evaluation Reports........................................ 80

Step 6: 6.2 Communicating Results Exercise

.................................................................................. 82

Outline: 7.1 Basic Elements of an Evaluation Plan

........................................................................... 88

Outline: 7.2 Evaluation Plan Sketchpad

........................................................................................... 88

Logic Model Examples

.................................................................................................................... 98

OSH Logic Models Example

........................................................................................................ 98

Preventing Initiation of Tobacco Use Among Young People

...................................................... 98

Eliminating Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke

..................................................... 99

Promoting Quitting Among Adults and Young People

............................................................ 100

DNPAO Logic Model Example

.................................................................................................... 101

State NPAO Program—Detailed Logic Model

...................................................................... 101

STEP 1: 1.1 STAKEHOLDER MAPPING EXERCISE

It is suggested that the program enlist the aid of an evaluation stakeholder workgroup (ESW)

of 8 to 10 members that represents the stakeholders who have the greatest stake or

vested interest in the evaluation.* These stakeholders/primary intended users will serve in

a consultative role on all phases of the evaluation. To begin the process of selecting those

members who will best represent your primary intended users, it is suggested that you

make a list of all possible users with corresponding comments about their investment in the

evaluation and potential uses for evaluation results.

Priority Person/Group Comments

*Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Introduction to Process Evaluation in Tobacco Use Prevention and Control. Atlanta (GA):

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease

Prevention and Health Promotion, Ofﬁce on Smoking and Health, 2008 [accessed 2011 Oct 19].

3 4 5 62

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

3 4 5 62

Now, go back over your list of potential users of the evaluation results and consider their

level of priority on the list. For example, providing the information that funders or decision

makers need may take a higher priority over some clients even though the clients are still

very important. You might rate stakeholders in terms of “high,” “medium,” or “low” or you

might rank order them in numerical order (i.e. from “1” to “n”). The choice is yours.

Another method for determining priority users or stakeholders is to conduct a stakeholder

mapping exercise such as the one that follows. For this activity, choose the characteristics

that would be the most beneﬁcial for your evaluation stakeholder group members to

have related to their intended use of evaluation results. These characteristics would be

the ones determined by the program’s staff to be of the most value to your program’s

evaluation. Write the desired characteristics on the top (Characteristic X) and left-hand

side (Characteristic Y) of a 4 x 4 table. Also write whether these characteristics are of high

and low value to the program. Characteristics might include traits such as ability to use

information, inﬂuence over program’s future, and direct investment in the program. The

traits must be meaningful to the stated purposes of the evaluation.

Characteristic X

High Low

High

Low

Consider each stakeholder relevant to the evaluation and his or her potential role in

the evaluation. Rank the potential evaluation stakeholder as either high or low for each

characteristic. Place the stakeholder in the cell that ﬁts his or her importance level for each

characteristic.

Characteristic X

High Low

Characteristic X

High Stakeholder A, B, C, E, G, I, K, M Stakeholder D, F

Low Stakeholder H, J Stakeholder L, N

The stakeholders that fall into the high box for both characteristics X and Y would most

likely be strong candidates to be invited to be a part of the 8 to 10 person ESW. As with

any stakeholder group membership, potential participation would still include additional

conversations by program staff.

3 4 5 62

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Priority Person/Group Comments

3 4 5 62

Characteristic X

High Low

Characteristic X

High

Low

3 4 5 62

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

STEP 1: 1.2 EVALUATION PURPOSE EXERCISE

As important as identifying the end users and ESW is identifying the purpose of the

evaluation. These two aspects of the evaluation serve as a foundation for evaluation planning,

focus, design, and interpretation and use of results. The purpose of an evaluation inﬂuences

the identiﬁcation of stakeholders for the evaluation, selection of speciﬁc evaluation questions,

and the timing of evaluation activities. It is critical that the program is transparent about

intended purposes of the evaluation. If evaluation results will be used to determine whether a

program should be continued or eliminated, stakeholders should know this up front.

In order to determine the evaluation purpose, the evaluation team should work with

those who are requesting the evaluation to identify the possible multiple purposes for the

evaluation from multiple sources. The ﬁrst task is to consider what groups are interested in

an evaluation of the program. This might include the program staff, health department staff,

funders, state level decision makers, and other stakeholders. The second task would be to

align the speciﬁc group with what they are requesting to be evaluated. The next task would

be to ascertain what the potential uses of the evaluation results will be by each group

interested in the evaluation. And fourth, the team should develop a purpose statement

relevant to each group and evaluation requested.

Group Interested

in an Evaluation

What Is to Be

Evaluated

How Will the

Results Be Used

Evaluation Purpose

Statement

3 4 5 62

Next, the team should consider each purpose statement for duplication and overlap. What

statements could be combined? The ﬁnal step in the process is to merge the statements

into one overall purpose statement.

Evaluation Purpose Statement:

3 4 5 62

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Group Interested

in an Evaluation

What Is to Be

Evaluated

How Will the

Results Be Used

Evaluation Purpose

Statement

3 4 5 62

STEP 1: 1.3 STAKEHOLDER INCLUSION AND

COMMUNICATION PLAN EXERCISE

It is important to explore agendas at the beginning of the evaluation and come to a shared

understanding of roles and responsibilities as well as the purposes of the evaluation. Some

stakeholders will be represented on the ESW and some will not. It is important to include

a clear communication plan in your evaluation plan in order to meaningfully engage all

appropriate stakeholders and increase participation and buy-in for the evaluation as well as

use of ﬁnal results.

List the appropriate role for each stakeholder relevant to the evaluation and how and when

you might engage him or her in the evaluation. It is important to consider a stakeholder’s

expertise, level of interest, and availability when developing the communication plan. If there

are speciﬁc deadlines for information such as a community vote or funding opportunity, it is

important to note those as well. Additional columns could be added for comments.

Evaluation

Stakeholder

Role Related to

the Evaluation

Mode of

Communication

Timing of

Communication

A note on roles: Stakeholders need not be a member of the ESW in order to have a role

related to the evaluation. Given a stakeholder’s speciﬁc expertise, interest, availability, or

intended use of the evaluation results, he or she may be involved in part or all of the evaluation

without being a speciﬁc member of the ESW. Roles might include but are not limited to:



Development of the evaluation plan

Feedback on focusing the evaluation

Needing information about specific evaluation activities or progress of the evaluation

Facilitating implementation of specific aspects of the evaluation

Participation in interpretation meetings

Disseminating and promoting use of evaluation results

3 4 5 62

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Evaluation

Stakeholder

Role Related to

the Evaluation

Mode of

Communication

Timing of

Communication

3 4 5 62

STEP 1: 1.4 STAKEHOLDER INFORMATION NEEDS EXERCISE

While focusing the evaluation occurs in Step 3, the groundwork begins with the identiﬁcation

of stakeholders relevant to the evaluation or the primary intended users. The ESW

membership is designed to reﬂect the priority information needs of those members who

will use the evaluation information. However, it is not always possible to include some high

information need groups, and it is certainly not possible to include representation from every

group that would beneﬁt from evaluation results. This should not prevent evaluation staff and

the ESW from considering all points of view and needs for information when considering how

best to focus the evaluation. Therefore, determining stakeholder information needs is both

useful for considering membership in the ESW (Step 1) and focusing the evaluation (Step 3).

From your list of primary intended users (those who have a stake in the evaluation results),

identify what information each stakeholder will use.

Primary Intended User (Stakeholder) Evaluation Information Needed

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

3 4 5 62

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Primary Intended User (Stakeholder) Evaluation Information Needed

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

3 4 5 62

STEP 2: 2.1 PROGRAM STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT

EXERCISE

Another activity that will be needed to fully describe your program and prepare you to focus

your evaluation (Step 3) is an accurate assessment of the stage of development of the

program. The developmental stages that programs typically move through are planning,

implementation, and maintenance. It is essential to identify the appropriate stage of

development in preparation for focusing the evaluation because some evaluation questions

cannot be answered until a program reaches a speciﬁc stage of maturation. Stakeholders

need to be aware of what the evaluation can and cannot promise. Additionally, preparation

for future and sometimes complex evaluations needs to occur in early stages of

development for the evaluation to be fully successful.

The stage of development conceptual model is complementary with the logic model. Figure

3.1 shows how general program evaluation questions are distinguished by both logic model

categories and the developmental stage of the program. This places evaluation within the

appropriate stage of program development (planning, implementation, and maintenance).

The model offers suggested starting points for asking evaluation questions within the logic

model while respecting the developmental stage of the program. This will prepare the

program and the ESW to focus the evaluation appropriately based on program maturity and

priorities.

Figure 3.1: Stage of Development by Logic Model Category

Developmental Stage

Program

Planning

Program

Implementation

Program

Maintenance

Logic Model Category Inputs and Activities

Outputs and Short-term

Outcomes

Intermediate and

Long-term Outcomes

To determine what stage of development your program is currently in, staff and

stakeholders should have a conversation about program maturation with the logic model

in hand. It is important to note that when a program is reinventing itself or revitalization is

occurring, the program may resemble the left-hand side of the logic model and thus the

program planning stage even when it has been in existence for numerous years.

3 4 5 6

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Describe your program’s maturation:

Activities/Tasks

That Have

Been Completed

Activities/Tasks

Working on:

Activities/Tasks

Not Yet Begun

Progress Achieved on

Outputs or Outcomes

(Indicate if Short,

Intermediate, or

Long Term)

Based on your description and consideration of the logic model, your program is in what

stage of development?

Here is the example of developmental stages from the workbook:

Figure 3.2: Stage of Development by Logic Model Category Example

Developmental Stage

Program

Planning

Program

Implementation

Program

Maintenance

Example:

Developmental

Stages When

Passing a Policy

Assess environment

and assets

Develop policy

The policy has not

yet been passed

The policy has been

passed but not

implemented

The policy has been

in effect for

less than 1 year

The policy has been

in effect for

1 year or longer

Example:

Questions Based

on Developmental

Stage When

Passing a Policy

Is there public support

for the policy?

What resources

will be needed

for implementation

of the policy?

Is there compliance

with the policy?

Is there continued

or increased public

support for the policy?

Are there major

exemptions or loopholes

to the policy?

What is the

health impact

of the policy?

Using the Stakeholder Information Needs chart you prepared in Exercise 1.4, consider

the information needed in relation to timing across the logic model. Indicate on this chart

what stage of development the program will be in given the nature of the evaluation

question asked.

Primary Intended User Evaluation Information Needed Program Stage of Development

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

What evaluation questions are outside of the current stage of development of your

program? What implications does this have for your current evaluation? What implications

does this have for planning for future evaluations?

3 4 5 6

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Activities/Tasks

That Have

Been Completed

Activities/Tasks

Working on:

Activities/Tasks

Not Yet Begun

Progress Achieved on

Outputs or Outcomes

(Indicate if Short,

Intermediate, or

Long Term)

Based on your description and consideration of the logic model, your program is in what

stage of development?

Primary Intended User Evaluation Information Needed Program Stage of Development

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

3 4 5 6

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

STEP 3: 3.1 FOCUS THE EVALUATION EXERCISE

The amount of information you can gather concerning your program is potentially

limitless. Evaluations, however, are always limited by the number of questions that can

be realistically asked, the methods that can actually be employed, the feasibility of data

collection, and the available resources. Therefore, the issue at the heart of Step 3 in the

CDC framework is focusing the evaluation. The scope and depth of any program evaluation

is dependent on program and stakeholder priorities, available resources, including

ﬁnancial resources, staff and contractor availability, and amount of time committed to

the evaluation. The program should work together with the ESW to determine the priority

of these questions, the feasibility of answering the questions, and identifying the uses of

results before designing the evaluation plan.

In this exercise, you will need to consider all the information from previous exercises in

Step 1 through Step 2, the logic model, and your stakeholders’ vested interest in the

evaluation.

From the Stakeholder Mapping exercise, list the stakeholders included in the high-high or

priority category for information needs:

Stakeholders in High-high or Priority Category for Importance and Information Needs

2 3 4 5 6

From the Evaluation Purpose Identiﬁcation exercise, indicate your overall evaluation

purpose statement:

Evaluation Purpose Statement:

From the Stage of Development exercise, consider each stakeholder’s evaluation in relation

to the stage of development the program most appropriate for answering that question:

Primary Intended User Evaluation Information Needed Program Stage of Development

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Indicate your program’s current stage of development:

Based on your description and consideration of the logic model, your program is in what stage of

development?

Given the overall purpose statement and the stage of development of the program, what

questions from the high-high stakeholder group are viable for the current evaluation effort?

Evaluation Purpose Statement:

Stage of Development of Program:

High-high Category Stakeholders Evaluation Question

Next, the team should consider issues of feasibility related to those evaluation questions

that are viable options given the current program stage of development and the evaluation

purpose.

2 3 4 5 6

Evaluation

Question

Methods

That Might Be

Used to Answer

the Question

Assumptions or

Conditions for

This Method to

Be Viable

Resources

Needed to

Implement

This Method

Limitations of

This Method

No chart, grid, or exercise can fully answer the question of how best to focus the

evaluation. However, the above information should facilitate informed discussions and can

help avoid evaluation activities that are misaligned with the program stage of development,

underfunded, or not of the highest priority for information needs. Additional considerations

that might help you prioritize your evaluation questions include:



The questions most important to you and your key stakeholders (the “must answer”

questions)

Questions that provide results that you can use (e.g., for improvement)

Questions you can answer fully with available or easy to gather data

Questions within your resources to answer

The evaluation questions for the current evaluation are:

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Evaluation Purpose Statement:

Stage of Development of Program:

High-high Category Stakeholders Evaluation Question

2 3 4 5 6

Evaluation

Question

Methods

That Might Be

Used to Answer

the Question

Assumptions or

Conditions for

This Method to

Be Viable

Resources

Needed to

Implement

This Method

Limitations of

This Method

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

STEP 4: 4.1 EVALUATION PLAN METHODS GRID EXERCISE

One tool that is particularly useful in your evaluation plan is an evaluation plan methods

grid. Not only is this tool helpful to align evaluation questions with indicators/performance

measures and data sources and roles and responsibilities but it can facilitate advocating

for resources for the evaluation. Additionally, this tool facilitates a shared understanding of

the overall evaluation plan with stakeholders. This tool can take many forms and should be

adapted to ﬁt your speciﬁc evaluation and context.

Figure 4.1: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data Source Frequency Responsibility

What process

leads to

implementation

of policy?

N/A Case study Site visits and

reports

Pre and post

funding period

Contractor to be

determined

Figure 4.2: Evaluation Plan Methods Grid Example

Evaluation Question Indicators/

Performance Measure

Potential Data Source

(Existing/New)

Comments

What media promotion

activities are being

implemented?

Description of

promotional activities and

their reach of targeted

populations, dose,

intensity

Focus group feedback

Target Rating Point and

Gross Rating Point data

sources

Choose the grid that is most appropriate for your program and complete it given your

chosen evaluation questions from Step 3.

2 3 4 5 6

The evaluation questions for the current evaluation are:

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data Source Frequency Responsibility

Evaluation Question Indicator/ Performance

Measure

Potential Data Source

(Existing/New)

Comments

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Additional possible evaluation plan data grids might look like:

Evaluation

Question

Timeline Methods Data Sources Instruments

Needed

Staff/Persons

Responsible

Evaluation

Question

Methods Instruments

Needed

Timeline Respondents/

Population

Sample

Responsibility

Evaluation

Question

Indicators Data

Collection

Sources

Data

Collection

Methods

Timeline Data Analysis

Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data Source Frequency Responsibility

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Evaluation Question Indicator/ Performance

Measure

Potential Data Source

(Existing/New)

Comments

2 3 4 5 6

STEP 4: 4.2 EVALUATION BUDGET EXERCISE

For this exercise, you will need the work plan data grid you completed earlier in Step 4.

For this exercise, we have used one as an example, but you should use the one you have

chosen as most appropriate for your program.

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data Source Frequency Responsibility

The team should consider roles and responsibilities, what services might be in kind and what

activities will cost additional money. Will you need to pay for additional questions on existing

surveys or can you use items that already exist? Are there existing data sources or will you

need to create new ones? Do not forget items such as copying costs for surveys or Web

services or technology needed in the ﬁeld, such as recorders or mobile data collection devices.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data

Source

Frequency Responsibility Cost

Considerations

Don’t be surprised if during this exercise you have to revisit Step 3 or earlier portions

of Step 4. Often the budget available doesn’t match the evaluation desired. Either the

evaluation scope will need to be reduced or additional resources obtained. It is better to

thoroughly consider this now before implementation begins than have to change course

mid-implementation cycle.

2 3 4 5 6

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data

Source

Frequency Responsibility Cost

Considerations

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

STEP 5: 5.1 STAKEHOLDER INTERPRETATION MEETING

EXERCISE

Justifying conclusions includes analyzing the information you collect, interpreting what the

data mean, and drawing conclusions based on the data. This step is needed to turn the

data collected into meaningful, useful, and accessible information. This is often the step in

which programs incorrectly assume they no longer need the stakeholder workgroup and

that this step is better left to the “experts.” However, including your stakeholder group in

this step is directly tied to the previous discussion on credibility and acceptance of data

and conclusions.

Moreover, it is critical that your plans allow time for interpretation and review from

stakeholders (including your critics) to increase transparency and validity of your process

and conclusions. The emphasis here is on justifying conclusions not just analyzing data.

This is a step that deserves due diligence in the planning process. The propriety standard

plays a role in guiding the evaluator’s decisions on how to analyze and interpret data to

assure that all stakeholder values are respected in the process of drawing conclusions.*

This may include one or more stakeholder interpretation meetings to review interim data

and further reﬁne conclusions. A note of caution, as a stakeholder-driven process, there

is often pressure to reach beyond the evidence when drawing conclusions. It is the

responsibility of the evaluator and the evaluation workgroup to ensure that conclusions are

drawn directly from the evidence.

*Sandars JR, The Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. The Program Evaluation Standards. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks

(CA): Sage Publications, 1994.

2 3 4 5 6

A variety of activities can be included in your evaluation plan to solicit stakeholder input

and facilitate interpretation of evaluation data. An example is provided below:

Interpretation and Review Activities Timeline

Individual site evaluation reports and feedback Within 1 month of site visit

Check-in with ESW and/or participants

Within 3 months of site visit or as appropriate during

analysis phase

Grantee interpretation meeting

Immediately following preparation of preliminary

results

Stakeholder interpretation meeting

Within 3 months following the grantee interpretation

meeting

Stakeholder review of draft ﬁnal report

Within 3 months following the stakeholder

interpretation meeting

Clearance and review process of ﬁnal report

Within 2 months following stakeholder review of

draft ﬁnal report

Complete an outline of proposed activities appropriate to your evaluation project to include

opportunities for stakeholder interpretation and feedback:

Interpretation and Review Activities Timeline

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

It is important to consider the time it takes to solicit and incorporate stakeholder feedback

in your evaluation project timeline. At this time, you should revisit your budget and timeline

created earlier to ensure adequate time and funding for the stakeholder inclusion process.

In order to make sure your stakeholder interpretation meeting is a success, plan for

steps to help things run smoothly. Time for these activities needs to be included in your

evaluation timeline.



Send the initial invitation at least 2 months in advance so that stakeholders can plan

for the meeting. Remind stakeholders of the overall evaluation purpose and questions.

Send the preliminary report or PowerPoint presentation within 2 weeks of the initial

invitation to allow stakeholders time to review. It is important to remind stakeholders

that results are a draft and should not be shared outside of the review group.

Send reminders about the meeting 1 or 2 weeks prior to the date. Identify any pre-

existing documentation that may be useful for understanding context.

Plan for appropriate technology (and backup) needed such as recorders, laptop,

and screen, flipcharts.

If feasible, use a professional meeting facilitator.

A checklist to facilitate the development of a formal stakeholder interpretation meeting can

be found at http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/checklist_topics/

2 3 4 5 6

Interpretation and Review Activities Timeline

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

STEP 6: 6.1 REPORTING CHECKLIST EXERCISE

It may be helpful to include a draft table of contents and outline for sections of the ﬁnal

report in the evaluation plan. Additionally, the team could discuss preliminary ideas for

tailored evaluation reporting and include these ideas in the dissemination plan. Below is

a checklist of items that may be worth discussing during the evaluation planning stage

to ensure adequate time and resources are devoted to the implementation and reporting

process.

Tools and Templates: Checklist for Ensuring Effective Evaluation

Reports*



Provide interim and final reports to intended users in time for use.

Tailor the report content, format, and style for the audiences by involving audience

members.

Include an executive summary.

Summarize the description of the stakeholders and how they were engaged.

Describe essential features of the program (e.g., in appendices).

Explain the focus of the evaluation and its limitations.

Include an adequate summary of the evaluation plan and procedures.

Provide all necessary technical information (e.g., in appendices).

Specify the standards and criteria for evaluative judgments.

Explain the evaluative judgments and how they are supported by the evidence.

List both strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation.

Discuss recommendations for action with their advantages, disadvantages, and

resource implications.

Ensure protections for program clients and other stakeholders.

Anticipate how people or organizations might be affected by the findings.

Present minority opinions or rejoinders where necessary.

Verify that the report is accurate and unbiased.

Organize the report logically and include appropriate details.

Remove technical jargon.

Use examples, illustrations, graphics, and stories.

2 3 4 5 6

*Adapted from Worthen BR, Sanders JR, Fitzpatrick JL. Program Evaluation: Alternative

Approaches and Practical Guidelines. 2nd ed. New York: Addison Wesley Logman, 1997;

presented in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Comprehensive Cancer Control

Branch Program Evaluation Toolkit. Atlanta (GA): U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease

Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, 2010

[accessed 2011 Oct 19].

Also visit The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University online for a free evaluation

report checklist:

http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/checklist_topics/.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

STEP 6: 6.2 COMMUNICATING RESULTS EXERCISE

Your evaluation results may not reach the intended audience with the intended impact

just because they are published. An intentional communication and dissemination plan

should be included in your evaluation plan. As previously stated, the planning stage is

the time for the program to address the best way to share the lessons you will learn from

the evaluation. The communication-dissemination phase of the evaluation is a two-way

process designed to support use of the evaluation results for program improvement and

decision making. In order to achieve this outcome, a program must translate evaluation

results into practical applications and must systematically distribute the information or

knowledge through a variety of audience-speciﬁc strategies.

Communicating evaluation results involves sharing information in ways that make it

understandable and useful to stakeholders. Successful communication is key to your

evaluation results being used. You can do this by using a variety of communication formats

and channels. A communication format is the actual layout of the communication you will use,

such as reports, brochures, one-page descriptions, newsletters, executive summaries, slides,

and fact sheets. A communication channel is the route of communication you will use, such as

oral presentations, videos, e-mails, webcasts, news releases, and phone conferences. Both

the formats and channels should take into account the needs of different audiences, the type

of information you wish to provide, and the purpose of the communication.

When developing your communication or dissemination strategy, carefully consider the

following:



With which target audiences or groups of stakeholders will you share findings?

What formats and channels will you use to share findings?

When and how often do you plan to share findings?

Who is responsible for carrying out dissemination strategies?

You can use the following matrix to help you plan your communication process.

2 3 4 5 6

What do you want to

communicate?

To whom do you want

to communicate?

How do you want to communicate?

Format(s) Channel(s)

** This tool was adapted from DASH’s Communication Matrix in Using Evaluation to Improve Programs:

Strategic Planning in the Strategic planning kit for school health programs. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/

healthyyouth/evaluation/sp_toolkit.htm [accessed 2011 Oct 19].

This tool can help you track communications with your various audiences, including the

communication format(s) (the layout of the communication, such as newsletters) and the

communication channel(s) (the route of communication, such as oral presentations), audience

feedback on the communication message, and next steps you need to take in response.

Communication Date

Communication

Format(s)

Communication

Channel(s)

Audience

Feedback

and Next Steps

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

A second example of a tracking chart might look like this:

Target Audience

(Priority)

Objectives for the

Communication

Tools Timetable

Here is the example from the workbook:

Figure 5: Communication Plan Table

Target Audience

(Priority)

Goals Tools Timetable

Program Implementation

Team

Inform them in real time

about what’s working well

and what needs to be

quickly adjusted during

implementation

Monthly meetings and

brieﬁng documents

Monthly

Program Stakeholders Promote program progress Success stories Annually

Funding Decision Makers Continue and/or enhance

program funding

Executive summary;

Targeted program briefs

Within 90 days of

conclusion of funding

2 3 4 5 6

What do you want to

communicate?

To whom do you want

to communicate?

How do you want to communicate?

Format(s) Channel(s)

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

2 3 4 5 6

Communication Date

Communication

Format(s)

Communication

Channel(s)

Audience

Feedback

and Next Steps

2 3 4 5 6

Target Audience

(Priority)

Objectives for the

Communication

Tools Timetable

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

OUTLINE: 7.1 BASIC ELEMENTS OF AN EVALUATION PLAN

Often, programs have multiple funding sources and, thus, may have multiple evaluation

plans. Ideally, your program will develop one overarching evaluation plan that consolidates

all activities and provides an integrated view of program assessment. Then, as additional

funding sources are sought and activities added, those evaluation activities can be

enfolded into the larger logic model and evaluation scheme.

Your plan should be adapted to your speciﬁc evaluation needs and context. Additionally,

it is important to remember that your evaluation plan is a living, dynamic document

designed to adapt to the complexities of the environment within which your programs are

implemented. The plan is a guide to facilitate intentional decisions. If changes are made,

they are documented and done intentionally with a fully informed ESW.

The basic elements of an evaluation plan include:



Title page

Question overview

Intended use and users

Program description

Evaluation focus

Methods

Analysis and interpretation plan

Use, dissemination, and sharing plan

OUTLINE: 7.2 EVALUATION PLAN SKETCHPAD

Often, groups do not have the luxury of months to develop an evaluation plan. In many

scenarios, a program team has only one opportunity to work with their ESW to develop

their evaluation plan to submit with a funding proposal. All of the work discussed in this

workbook must be accomplished in a single workgroup meeting, retreat, or conference

session. In this scenario, it is helpful to have an evaluation sketchpad to develop the

backbone or skeleton outline of your evaluation plan. With the major components of

your evaluation plan developed, you will have the elements necessary to submit a basic

evaluation plan that can be further developed with your funder and future stakeholders.

Even if you have time to fully develop a mature evaluation plan, this sketchpad exercise is

often a great tool to use to work with an ESW in a retreat type setting.

1. First, brainstorm a list of stakeholders for your evaluation project.

Priority Person/Group Comments

2. Go back to your list and circle high-priority stakeholders or high-priority information

needs.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

From the list of high-priority stakeholders identiﬁed above, think about their information

needs from the evaluation or about the program.

Primary Intended User Information Needed

Discuss the intended uses of the evaluation by primary intended users and program staff:

Primary Intended User/Program Staff Intended Uses

3. Discuss potential political agendas or environmental constraints (Hidden agendas—

from stakeholders, team members, company). What goals and objectives for the

evaluation do stakeholders come to the table with before you even begin the

evaluation? What is most important to each of the stakeholders at the table?

Stakeholder Goals/Objectives

4. Briefly describe your program (in your plan you will include your logic model(s) if you

have one):

Description of Program:

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

5. Think back to your program description you just wrote. Where are you in your

program’s growth (beginning, middle, mature)?

Stage of Growth:

6. Based on where you are in your program’s growth, what does that tell you about

what kinds of questions you can ask?

Stage of Growth Questions

Beginning

Middle

Mature

7. Based on your program’s growth, your list of high-priority stakeholders and high-

priority information needs, as well as your information needs, what are your possible

evaluation questions?

Your evaluation questions for the current evaluation are:

8. Now, take each question and think about ways you might answer that question.

Will your method be qualitative, quantitative or both? Do you already have a

data source? Will you have some success stories? How much will it cost? What

resources do you have? Who needs to be involved to make the evaluation a

success? How will you ensure use of lessons learned? How and when will you

disseminate information? Below are two samples of tables you can use to organize

this information.

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data Source Frequency Responsibility

Evaluation

Question

Indicator/

Performance

Measure

Method Data

Source

Frequency Responsibility Cost

Considerations

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

9. Now think about the different ways you might communicate information from the

evaluation to stakeholders. Communication may include information to stakeholders

not on your ESW. You may want to provide preliminary results, success stories, etc.

throughout the evaluation. Additionally, your ESW may assist in your communication

efforts. What deadlines must be met and what opportunities are lost if deadlines are

not met. How will this impact the timetable you created in #8?

What do you want to

communicate?

To whom do you want

to communicate?

How do you want to communicate?

Format(s) Channel(s)

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

LOGIC MODEL EXAMPLES

OSH Logic Models Example

Preventing Initiation of Tobacco Use Among Young People

Eliminating Nonsmokers’ Exposure to Secondhand Smoke

100

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Promoting Quitting Among Adults and Young People

101

State NPAO Program—Detailed Logic Model (FOA 805 & TA Manual)

DNPAO Logic Model Example

102

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Resources *

*Resources are listed for the convenience of the user and do not constitute endorsement

by the U.S. Government.

WEB RESOURCES

American Evaluation Association



http://www.eval.org/

The American Evaluation Association (AEA) is an international professional

association of evaluators devoted to the application and exploration of program

evaluation, personnel evaluation, technology, and many other forms of evaluation.

Evaluation involves assessing the strengths and weaknesses of programs, policies,

personnel, products, and organizations to improve their effectiveness. AEA has

approximately 5,500 members representing all 50 states in the United States as well

as over 60 foreign countries. [accessed 2011 Jul 19]

Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC) Division of Adolescent and School

Health’s Program Evaluation Resources and Tools

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/resources.htm

CDC Division of Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention’s Practical Use of Program

Evaluation among Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Programs

http://

www.cdc.gov/std/program/pupestd/Introduction-SPREADS.pdf

CDC Framework for Program Evaluation

http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/index.htm

Effective program evaluation is a systematic way to improve and account for public

health actions that involve procedures that are useful, feasible, ethical, and accurate.

The framework guides public health professionals in their use of program evaluation.

It is a practical, nonprescriptive tool, designed to summarize and organize essential

elements of program evaluation. The framework comprises steps in program

evaluation practice and standards for effective program evaluation. Adhering to the

steps and standards of this framework will allow an understanding of each program’s

context and will improve how program evaluations are conceived and conducted.

103

CDC Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public Health Programs: A Self Study Guide



http://www.cdc.gov/getsmart/program-planner/downloads/Manual_04062006.pdf

Disseminating Program Achievements and Evaluation Findings to Garner Support

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/pdf/brief9.pdf

Impact and Value: Telling Your Program’s Story

http://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/library/success_stories_wkbk.htm

National Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program’s Evaluation Guides: Writing

SMART Objectives; Developing and Using Logic Models

http://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/programs/nhdsp_program/evaluation_guides/logic_

model.htm

Penn State Extension Program Evaluation Resources

http://extension.psu.edu/evaluation/

Western Michigan University: The Evaluation Center

http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists/

This site provides refereed checklists for designing, budgeting, contracting, staffing,

managing, and assessing evaluations of programs, personnel, students, and

other evaluations; collecting, analyzing, and reporting evaluation information; and

determining merit, worth, and significance. Each checklist is a distillation of valuable

lessons learned from practice.

University of Wisconsin Extension: Program Development and Evaluation publications

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/evaldocs.html

This site provides a range of publications for planning and implementing an

evaluation and offers online evaluation curriculums and courses.

W.K. Kellogg Foundation: Logic Model and Development Guide

http://www.wkkf.org/knowledge-center/resources/2006/02/WK-Kellogg-

Foundation-Logic-Model-Development-Guide.aspx

A guide to logic modeling to facilitate program planning and implementation activities.

104

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

MAKING YOUR IDEAS STICK, REPORTING, AND PROGRAM

PLANNING

Atkinson C. Beyond Bullet Points: Using Microsoft Ofﬁce PowerPoint 2007 to Create

Presentations That Inform, Motivate, and Inspire. Microsoft Press, 2007.

Becker HS. Writing for Social Scientist: How to Start and Finish Your Thesis, Book, or

Article. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2077, 2nd ed.

Heath C, Heath, D. Made to Stick: Why some Ideas Survive and Others Die. New York, NY:

Random House, 2007.

Heath C, Heath D. Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard. New York, NY:

Random House, 2010.

Impact and Value: Telling Your Program’s Story

 www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/publications/library/success_stories_wkbk.htm

Lavinghouze R, Price AW, Smith, KA. The Program Success Story: A Valuable Tool for

Program Evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 2007; 8(4): 323–331.

Torres R, Preskill H, Piontek ME. Evaluation Strategies for Communicating and Reporting.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2004, 2nd ed.

QUALITATIVE METHODS

Miles MB, Huberman, MA. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., 1994, 2nd ed.

Patton M.Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications, Inc., 2001, 3rd ed.

Yin RK. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods)

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 2008, 4th ed.

Yin RK. Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2010.

105

QUANTITATIVE METHODS

Kleinbaum DG, Klein M. Logistic Regression: A Self-Learning Text (Statistics for Biology

and Health. Springer, New York, NY, 2010, 3rd ed.

Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Modern Epidemiology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott

Williams & Wilkins, 2008, 3rd ed.

Tufte ER. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 1990.

Tufte ER. The Visual Display of quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 2001.

EVALUATION USE

Butterfoss FD. Coalitions and Partnerships in Community Health. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass, 2007.

Mattessich PW. The Manager’s Guide to Program Evaluation: Planning, Contracting, and

Managing for Useful Results. St. Paul, Minnesota: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 2003.

Patton MQ. Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance

Innovation and Use. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, 2010.

Patton MQ. Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication, 2008,

4th ed.

OSH EVALUATION RESOURCES

Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—2007



http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/stateandcommunity/best_practices/index.htm

CDC’s Best Practices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs—2007 is an

evidence-based guide to help states plan and establish effective tobacco control

programs to prevent and reduce tobacco use.

Evaluation Toolkit for Smoke-Free Policies

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/basic_information/secondhand_smoke/evaluation_

toolkit/index.htm

The evaluation approaches described in this toolkit and the findings of studies

conducted using these approaches may also be useful to stakeholders who are

interested in the effects of smoke-free laws, including business organizations (e.g.,

chambers of commerce, restaurant associations) and labor unions.

106

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan

Introduction to Process Evaluation in Tobacco Use Prevention and Control



www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/process_

evaluation/index.htm

Published in 2008, this guide will help state and federal program managers and

evaluation staff design and implement valid, reliable process evaluations for

tobacco use prevention and control programs.

Introduction to Program Evaluation for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

evaluation_manual/index.htm

Published in 2001, this “how to” guide for planning and implementing evaluation

activities will help state tobacco control program managers and staff in the planning,

design, implementation, and use of practical and comprehensive evaluations of

tobacco control efforts.

Key Outcome Indicators for Evaluating Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

key_outcome/index.htm

Published in 2005, this guide provides information on 120 key outcome indicators for

evaluation of statewide comprehensive tobacco prevention and control programs.

Question Inventory on Tobacco (QIT)

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/qit/quickSearch.aspx

This Web-based tool developed by CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health

categorizes more than 6,000 tobacco-related questions. This site can be used to

collect information on survey questions used in the past, locate available data for

secondary analyses, and gather ideas for future instrument development.

Quitlines: A Resource for Development, Implementation, and Evaluation

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/quit_smoking/cessation/quitlines/index.htm

This 2005 document is intended to help state health departments, health care

organizations, and employers to contract for and monitor telephone-based tobacco

cessation services. It is also designed to help states, health care organizations, and

quitline operators enhance existing quitline services and to inform those who are

interested in learning more about population-based approaches to tobacco cessation.

107

Smoking—Attributable Mortality, Morbidity, and Economic Costs (SAMMEC)



http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/

This online application allows you to estimate the health and health-related

economic consequences of smoking to adults and infants.

State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/statesystem

The STATE System is an electronic data warehouse containing up-to-date and

historical state-level data on tobacco use prevention and control.

Surveillance and Evaluation Data Resources for Comprehensive Tobacco Control

Programs

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

surveillance_manual/index.htm

Published in 2001, this compilation of data sources for tobacco control programs is

useful for tobacco control programs that are conducting surveillance or evaluation.

Surveillance and Evaluation Net-Conferences

Archived presentations available at: http://www.ttac.org/resources/cdc_

netconferences.html

The Surveillance and Evaluation Net-conference series provides information on

evaluation best and promising practices and describes the role of evaluation in

tobacco control work. The Net-conference series was originally designed for state

surveillance and evaluation staff, but the material covers a variety of interesting

and emerging topics in surveillance and evaluation that are valuable to other public

health professionals. Each conference consists of a lecture followed by a question

and answer session.

Surveillance and Evaluation Web page on CDC-OSH’s Smoking and Tobacco Use website

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/tobacco_control_programs/surveillance_evaluation/

index.htm

Tobacco Control State Highlights 2010

http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/state_highlights/2010/index.htm

108

Developing an Effective Evaluation Plan



Tobacco Control State Highlights 2010 guides states in developing and

implementing high-impact strategies and assessing their performance. This report

also provides state-specific data intended to—highlight how some states are

making great strides in reducing smoking rates using evidence-based strategies

while also showing that more work needs to be done in other states, enable readers

to see how their own states perform, and help policymakers with decision making.

DNPAO EVALUATION RESOURCES

Developing and Using an Evaluation Consultation Group

http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/EvaluationConsultationGroup.pdf

An Evaluation Consultation Group (ECG) is required for all state obesity programs

funded by the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity (DNPAO) to

provide technical, programmatic, and related input to the program evaluation of

the state health department’s NPAO work. This guidance provides a systematic

approach to evaluating an ECG including a series of steps and tools for conducting

the evaluation.

Evaluation of State Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity Plans

www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/EvaluationofStateNPAOPlans.pdf

This guide clarifies approaches to and methods of evaluation; provides examples

and tools specific to the scope and purpose of state nutrition, physical activity and

obesityprograms; and recommends resources for additional reading.

Evaluation: Quick Start Resources

http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/physical/pdf/PA_evaluation_quick_start.pdf

This resource provides a list of key references and tools for planning and

implementing program and/or project evaluations, focusing specifically on physical

activity programs and evaluations.

Recommended Community Strategies and Measurements to Prevent Obesity in the

United States

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5807a1.htm

This report identifies and recommends a set of 24 strategies and associated

measurements that communities and local governments can use to plan and

monitor environmental and policy-level changes for obesity prevention.