NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ996157
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2013-Mar
Pages: 7
Abstractor: ERIC
Reference Count: 12
ISSN: ISSN-1360-3736
The Role of Training in the Evaluation of Public Programs
Treiber, Jeanette; Kipke, Robin; Satterlund, Travis; Cassady, Diana
International Journal of Training and Development, v17 n1 p54-60 Mar 2013
Nearly all private, government and non-governmental organizations that receive government funding to run social or health promotion programs in the United States are required to conduct program evaluations and to report findings to the funding agency. Reports are usually due at the end of a funding cycle and they may or may not have an influence on the continuation of program funding. The final evaluation report (FER), as the end-of-funding-cycle report is often called, generally relates the intervention and evaluation results of the funding period and has a dual purpose. It is considered an element of accountability and should give the program and its stakeholders direction for the future. All too often though, this is not the case. Evaluators have voiced myriad concerns about the many issues related to reports and their usage. In their study of a random sample of American Evaluation Association members, Torres et al. (1997) found that evaluators are generally discontent about reporting and about the fact that their reports are often misused or not used at all. Evaluation reports could be a valuable instrument for moving projects forward if stakeholders and project staff would make good use of evaluation findings. The Tobacco Control Evaluation Center (TCEC) (2006) at the University of California at Davis developed scoring measures for final report writing for over 100 local tobacco control projects in California but found 2007 reports lacking in quality. In 2010, it conducted a training campaign in the hope that the projects themselves, the funding government agency and TCEC may make better use of the reports. The response to the training call was overwhelming, and comparing scores from 2007 and 2010, participating agencies made statistically significant improvements but non-participants did not. Results relating to the mode of training were inconclusive. The pre- and post-score comparison proved to be a valuable measuring tool, and the 1-day face-to-face training was a useful training mode. (Contains 1 table.)
Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Adult Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: California; United States