USA. Research results of a study of the federal system for the evaluation of social policy programmes - distinguishes four types of evaluation, viz. Programme impact, programme strategy, project evaluation and project rating, covers administrative aspects, organizational relationships between national level and local level, financial aspects and personneling, evaluation techniques, etc., and includes recommendations. Bibliography pp. 121 to 134.

In October 2016, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened a 1-day public workshop on Principles and Practices for Federal Program Evaluation. The workshop was organized to consider ways to bolster the integrity and protect the objectivity of the evaluation function in federal agenciesâ€"a process that is essential for evidence-based policy making. This publication summarizes the presentations and discussions from the workshop.

Pamphlet asserting the need for a research policy to ensure efficient utilization of educational evaluation research by educational policy-makers in the USA - discusses the potential role of educational project evaluation in determining resource allocation priorities, etc., and includes recommendations.

Including a new section on evaluation accountability, this Third Edition details 30 standards which give advice to those interested in planning, implementing and using program evaluations.

This detailed & up-to-date account of the organization & use of evaluation in eight Western, democratic countries-Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, Denmark, Holland, Norway, & Switzerland-shows how evaluation functions at different levels of development. Focusing on the national or federal level of government, it presents a systematic & comparative view of eight nations at different stages of the development, institutionalization, & utilization of evaluations. Contributors are academics & government officials, all of whom are involved in the production & use of evaluation findings.

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), passed by Congress in 1993, requires that federal agencies write five-year strategic plans with annual performance goals and produce an annual report that demonstrates whether the goals have been met. The first performance reports are due in March 2000. Measuring the performance of basic research is particularly challenging because major breakthroughs can be unpredictable and difficult to assess in the short term. This book recommends that federal agencies use an "expert review" method to examine the quality of research they support, the relevance of that research to their mission, and whether the research is at the international forefront of scientific and technological knowledge. It also addresses the issues of matching evaluation measurements to the character of the research performed, improving coordination among agencies when research is in the same field, and including a human resource development component in GPRA strategic and performance plans.

One of the most divisive issues in the evaluation community has been the debate over which methodologies are to be considered adequate or commendable in addressing different evaluation questions in different settings. One form of this debate involved opposing camps of proponents of qualitative versus quantitative methods. A decade ago, there was some hope that the two sides of this debate, referred to as the paradigm war, were learning to respect each other. More recently, however, a federal agency priority for funding random assignment experimental studies has reignited the debate. This volume provides a space for a productive dialogue that, by identifying areas of agreement but also fundamental differences, will promote a more durable working consensus on the circumstances in which some methods are to be preferred over others. The chapter authors and discussants make clear that there are different types of evidence with which to inform this dialogue, including empirical findings of the impact of method choice on evaluation outcomes, the evidence contained in the wisdom of practice, and the results of critical analyses of the broader social impacts of method choice. The editors build on these contributions to suggest pragmatic policies for federal agencies, promoting both context-appropriate method choice and the importance of managing portfolios of evaluative research that maintain desired distributions of methodologies. This is the 113th volume of the Jossey-Bass quarterly report series New Directions for Evaluation, a publication of Jossey-Bass and the American Evaluation Association.