Point one: I like how the chapter framed the evaluation as a method of measuring whether the hypothesis (problem statement) has been solved. It makes the evaluation seem less daunting because its been simplified down to a prove/disprove situation. I think this will help me in making sure my method of eval. actually shows impact or change not just states it. Having a good eval. only leads to higher interest from funders because it demonstrates how the program is well though out beyond simply running it to how it will help.
Point two: Really interesting point made in how one determines using an internal or external evaluator. I had always thought the evaluation component would have to be internal in order for there to be a proper amount of context understood about the program/its purpose. This reason is exactly my concern with using any sort of external evaluator. At the same time, I now see an internal evaluator as a possible way for bias to seep in while the external couldn’t. Therefore, I think this decision bleeds down to a number of factors (how intricate the program is, what the evaluation is looking at, staffing numbers, etc.)
Point three: The goal is to have an evaluation that includes both measures of quantitative and qualitative data. Doing so shows that the evaluation was well thought out and that a nonprofit cares about how effective a program was compared to desired goals. Funders will be able to point out a sloppily made evaluation if it doesn’t attempt to answer questions about the programs effectiveness or impact.
