4.1 Article

Evaluation capacity building in the nonformal education context: Challenges and strategies

Journal

EVALUATION AND PROGRAM PLANNING
Volume 79, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101768

Keywords

Evaluation capacity building; Challenges; Strategies; Nonformal education; Delphi study

Funding

  1. United States Department of Agriculture National Institute for Food and Agriculture multistate Hatch project [NC1190]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Policymakers' demand for increased accountability has compelled organizations to pay more attention to internal evaluation capacity building (ECB). The existing literature about ECB has focused on capacity building experiences and organizational research, with limited attention on challenges that internal evaluation specialists face in building organizational evaluative capacity. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a Delphi study with evaluation specialists in the United States' Cooperative Extension Service and developed a consensus on the most pervasive ECB challenges as well as the most useful strategies for overcoming ECB challenges. Challenges identified in this study include limited time and resources, limited understanding of the value of evaluation, evaluation considered as an afterthought, and limited support and buy-in from administrators. Alternatively, strategies found in the study include a shift in an organizational culture where evaluation is appreciated, buy-in and support from administration, clarifying the importance of quality than quantity of evaluations, and a strategic approach to ECB. The challenges identified in this study have persisted for decades, meaning administrators must understand the persistence of these issues and make an earnest investment (financial and human resource) to make noticeable progress. The Delphi approach can be used more often to prioritize ECB efforts.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available