Faith-based evaluation: Accountable to whom, for what?
AbstractFindings, issues, and lessons learned about program evaluation are examined from a national qualitative study of 15 faith-based human service programs targeting those in need in urban areas. Using a grounded theory design, five properties emerge as part of the evaluation network: (1) philosophy of accountability, (2) legitimacy, (3) evaluation design, (4) feedback loop, and (5) barriers to evaluation. While funders expect measurable outcomes to evaluate service effectiveness, respondents acknowledge other competing expectations of multiple constituents in religious and secular communities. What emerges is an excellent example of managing multiple program evaluation demands in programs that are particularly facile at process evaluation in the interest of quality service and relationship building. The article concludes with important lessons learned about the process of program evaluation.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Elsevier in its journal Evaluation and Program Planning.
Volume (Year): 31 (2008)
Issue (Month): 4 (November)
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan
Faith-based Program evaluation Accountability;
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Christie, Christina A. & Montrosse, Bianca E. & Klein, Brock M., 2005. "Emergent design evaluation: A case study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 271-277, August.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wendy Shamier).
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.