Selecting Your Program Evaluation Type

As was mentioned in the previous module, program evaluations can be conducted at different times throughout the implementation of your harm reduction program. Determining the type(s) of evaluation that you will need to implement as early as possible in the planning stage will provide a consistent benchmark for brainstorming and decision making, particularly when drafting your evaluation questions and conducting your data analysis. It is common for an evaluation to include two types of evaluation, such as when your organization conducts an impact evaluation and combines it with a summative evaluation in a report. Over time, this process becomes easier and easier until you can recognize the evaluation type(s) as soon as planning starts or as soon as an external evaluation is requested, for example by a funder.

Time and timing are crucial planning considerations for program evaluation and play a role in how your evaluation eventually functions. Will you need to reach a new goal every month? Does your funder need to receive a report twice yearly? How often do you need to update our intake lists? All these questions require that program evaluation has a recognized period of time in which it functions and/or an established cycle in time along which efforts are conducted. If a timeframe is defined by an external stakeholder, make sure your scheduling tools and timelines are adapted to their period of interest. If self-selecting evaluation timeframes, keep in mind that complexity will rise with the number of cycles you must conduct. Conducting large evaluation efforts once or twice a year may be the best fit for a program with limited evaluation experience.

Regardless of how often a new evaluation cycle occurs, developing an internal timeline is critical to keep the evaluation tasks on track. This timeline can be general, with tasks needing to be completed by a certain month, or as specific as setting deadlines on specific days.

The table below outlines the types of program evaluations that are most commonly implemented and when they occur.

Table (3.4). When to Conduct Different Evaluation Types

	At the Beginning of Program Implementation	Midway Through Program Implementation	At the End of Program Implementation	After the Program has Ended
Process Evaluation	Marked cell for beginning of program.●	Marked cell for midway through program.●	Marked cell for end of program.●	Blank cell for after program.
Outcome Evaluation	Blank cell for beginning of program.	Marked cell for midway through program.●	Marked cell for end of program.●	Blank cell for after program.
Impact Evaluation	Blank cell for beginning of program.	Marked cell for midway through program.●	Marked cell for end of program.●	Marked cell for after program.●
Summative Evaluation	Blank cell for beginning of program.	Blank cell for midway through program.	Blank cell for end of program.	Marked cell for after program.●

For a further breakdown of each evaluation type, see Module 2.

Once you determine the type of evaluation you will be conducting, it can be helpful to revisit your logic model to figure out what type of program data or information your evaluation should focus on to accomplish its aim.

For example, if you are conducting a process evaluation, it is helpful to focus on assessing the program information listed in the "inputs," "activity," and "outputs" sections of your logic model, as these pieces are most connected to how your harm reduction program is being implemented on a day-to-day basis.

If you are conducting an outcome evaluation or impact evaluation, it is helpful to focus on assessing the program information listed in the "short-term outcome", "intermediate outcome," and/or "long-term outcome" sections of your logic model, as these elements all relate to what should happen, or occur, as a result of your program implementation.

Lastly, for summative evaluations, it is most helpful to focus on the information listed in the "long-term" outcomes section of your logic model, as this piece is the most connected to the ultimately intended difference your program is intended to make.

The table below further illustrates the logic model areas of focus based on evaluation type.

Table (3.5). Logic Model Components, Descriptions and Evaluation Types

		Process Evaluation	Outcome Evaluation	Impact Evaluation	Summative Evaluation
Inputs	The staffing, resources, supplies and time that goes into your harm reduction program.	Marked cell for process evaluation.●	Blank cell for outcome evaluation.	Blank cell for impact evaluation.	Blank cell for summative evaluation.
Activities	What your program is doing to accomplish your program goals; the program’s efforts.	Marked cell for process evaluation.●	Blank cell for outcome evaluation.	Blank cell for impact evaluation.	Blank cell for summative evaluation.
Outputs	What is produced or occurs because of the activities.	Marked cell for process evaluation.●	Blank cell for outcome evaluation.	Blank cell for impact evaluation.	Blank cell for summative evaluation.
Short-Term Outcomes	The intended difference the program activities should make within the organization or the community at large in the short term.	Blank cell for process evaluation.	Marked cell for outcome evaluation.●	Marked cell for impact evaluation.●	Blank cell for summative evaluation.
Intermediate (Medium) Outcomes	The intended difference the program activities should make within the organization or the community at large in the longer term.	Blank cell for process evaluation.	Marked cell for outcome evaluation.●	Marked cell for impact evaluation.●	Blank cell for summative evaluation.
Long-Term Outcomes (Impact)	The intended difference the program ultimately should make within the organization or the community at large.	Blank cell for process evaluation.	Blank cell for outcome evaluation.	Blank cell for impact evaluation.	Marked cell for summative evaluation.●

Source: CDC. (n.d.) Develop an effective evaluation plan: Setting the course for effective program evaluation. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/downloads/cdc-evaluation-workbook-508.pdf