- Home
- About us
- ILAC Activities
- Resources
- ILAC Publications
- ILAC Briefs
- ILAC Sourcebook
- Acknowledgement
- About the Sourcebook
- Acronyms
- Part 1 - Introduction and overview
- Part 2 - Tools and approaches
- Chapter 6: Introduction Part 2
- Chapter 7: Innovation histories
- Chapter 9: Culture study as a tool for change
- Chapter 12: Collaborative agreements
- Chapter 13: Facilitation as a foundation skill for ILAC
- Chapter 14: Learning alliances
- Chapter 15: Institutional histories
- Chapter 16: Engaging Scientists through Institutional Histories
- Chapter 18: Horizontal evaluation
- Chapter 19: Appreciative inquiry
- Part 3 - Cases and experiences
- Part 4 - Challenges and strategies
- About the authors
- Glossary
- References
- Working Papers
- Journal Articles
- Newsletter
- Reports
- ILAC Library
- Tools and methods for M&E
- Appreciative inquiry
- Biophysical measurements
- Case study
- Content analysis
- Contribution analysis
- Cost-Benefit Analysis
- Creative expression
- Diaries, journals and logs
- Dreams realised or visioning
- Expert review
- GIS mapping
- Graphing results
- Group assessment
- Historical trends and timelines
- Horizontal evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Benefit-cost methods
- Case studies
- Cost-effectiveness analysis
- Counterfactual Impact Evaluation (CIE)
- Difference-in-difference
- Econometric methods
- Ex-post comparison of project beneficiaries with a control group
- Instrumental variables
- Integrated partial indicators
- Mathematical programming
- Modified peer review
- Partial indicators of impact
- Patent analysis
- Pipeline comparison
- Production function approach
- Propensity score matching
- Quasi-experimental design, involving the use of matched control and project groups
- Randomization
- Rapid assessment or review, conducted ex post
- Regression discontinuity design
- Simulation method
- User surveys
- Impact flow diagram
- Innovation histories
- Institutional history
- Institutional linkage diagram
- Interviews
- Learning alliances
- Learning-oriented evaluation
- M&E Frameworks
- M&E wheel (or "spider web")
- Mapping (sketch)
- Matrix scoring
- Most significant change
- Net-Map
- Non-random sampling
- Observation
- Outcome mapping
- Participatory Impact Pathways Analysis
- Participatory methods
- Performance indicators
- Photographs and video
- Problem and objectives trees
- Random sampling
- Ranking and pocket charts
- Rapid appraisal methods
- Relative scales or ladders
- Rich pictures (or mind maps)
- SWOT
- Seasonal calendars
- Semantic differentials
- Social mapping or well-being ranking
- Sociograms
- Stakeholder analysis
- Survey
- Systems (or inputs-outputs) diagram
- Theory-Based Evaluation
- Transects
- Evaluation studies and reports
- Evaluating capacity development
- Partnership
- Seminars
- Video Room
- Links to other sites
- E-learning courses
- ILAC Publications
- Contact
- Blog
The Evaluator’s Role in Recommending Program Closure: A Model for Decision Making and Professional Responsibility
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 17:18 — Cristina Sette
Publication Type:
Journal ArticleSource:
American Journal of Evaluation, Volume 30, Issue 3, p.363-376 (2009)Keywords:
ethics; Evaluation; heuristic model; ILAC Newsletter; program closure; program recommendationsAbstract:
Evaluators face challenges when programs consistently fail to meet expectations for performance or improvement and consequently, evaluators may recommend that closing a program is the most prudent course of action. However, the evaluation literature provides little guidance regarding when an evaluator might recommend program closure. Given evaluators’ ethical responsibilities to the public good coupled with the inadequacy of methods currently used to justify program closure, we posit the development of a heuristic model designed to identify the point at which a program might be recommended for closure. The heuristic model depends on whether implementation factors are under the control of program administrators (i.e., flexible factors) or out of their control (i.e., immutable factors) and are potentially moderated by facilitating or inhibitory characteristics (e.g., political advocacy, community need, length of time in operation, performance quality). By delineating whether a poorly functioning program could be substantially improved, evaluators should not consider recommendation for or support of a program closure a personal or professional defeat, but rather an opportunity to exercise their professional responsibility to the evaluation profession and the public good. Caveats regarding the political context of an evaluation and the information required to make heuristic judgments about program closure are also discussed.Sublibrary:
Evaluation