Program Evaluation Toolkit for Harm Reduction Organizations
In addition to assembling your evaluation team, determining who will serve as your evaluator should take place early on in the planning process. Whoever is selected will have the responsibility of leading all elements of the coordination and implementation of the evaluation effort and working collaboratively with both the program team and the evaluation team to ensure everyone is up to speed and engaged in the process. Deciding whether you will choose an internal evaluator or hire an external evaluator to lead the effort is important. Depending on your needs, you might opt to use an internal evaluator for certain components of the evaluation process and hire an external evaluator to specifically support the more complex or technical components of the evaluation (e.g., data analysis and write up of findings). As you consider which arrangement best aligns with your program needs, here are several pros and cons to keep in mind.
Table (3.1). The Pro and Cons of Internal Evaluators
Internal Evaluators
Staff who are on the program or within the organization conduct the evaluation.
| PROS (Internal Evaluators) | CONS (Internal Evaluators) |
|---|---|
| Existing Program Knowledge: Internal staff have prior knowledge of the program, the people involved and the unique cultural and political factors of the harm reduction program prior to the evaluation. |
Potential Bias: It's possible that internal staff may be incentivized to portray all program activities and their impact on the community in a positive light, and minimize any contradicting data. |
| More Cost Effective: An internal staff person may already be on the program, so having them lead these tasks may not have any additional cost. |
Limited Skill Set: An internal staff may not be as knowledgeable about how to coordinate, implement and monitor an evaluation effort. |
| Increase In-House Expertise: Building into staff ability to lead this program evaluation may strengthen professional development and increase staff capacity to lead additional evaluation efforts. |
Distract from Other Duties: Adding the responsibility of leading this program evaluation may distract from the staff person’s other job duties. |
Source: Program Evaluation Basics by the University of Albany’s Center for Human Services Research
Table (3.2). The Pro and Cons of External Evaluators
External Evaluators
A consultant who is brought into the program supports a specific evaluation effort.
| PROS (External Evaluators) | CONS (External Evaluators) |
|---|---|
| Objective Perspective: An external evaluator will likely be less biased when conducting the evaluation because they do not have prior involvement in the program and possess no conflict of interest. |
Cost: External evaluators typically expect to be paid, and that may or may not be included in the program budget. |
| Expertise: An external evaluator may possess a broader range of knowledge and skills regarding implementing a program evaluation and analyzing evaluation data. |
Less Knowledge of the Program: External evaluators have to learn about the program before conducting the evaluation, which could take time and energy. |
Source: Program Evaluation Basics by the University of Albany’s Center for Human Services Research
No matter which direction your program goes, it is important to clearly define who will take on which roles and responsibilities. If your team decides to designate a lead evaluator role, having a good working relationship with that person or that team is key to ensuring that the evaluation both stays on track and aligns with the needs and aims of your harm reduction program.
Here are some resources on collaborating with internal and external evaluators:
