Organizational Relationships of Evaluator to Client
Evaluator Employed To Do One Evaluation or Successive Evaluations Evaluator Reports
1. Within organization which has responsibility for the program being evaluated
1. Successive evaluations 1. Directly to director of program evaluated
2. Within organization which has responsibility for the program being evaluated
2. One evaluation 2. Directly to director of program being evaluated
3. Within organization which has responsibility for the program being evaluated
3. Successive evaluations 3. To someone outside the program being evaluated but within the same organization
4. Within organization which has responsibility for the program being evaluated
4. One evaluation 4. To someone outside the program being evaluated but within the same organization
5. By outside agency 5. Successive evaluations 5. As consultant or contractor to director of program being evaluated
6. By outside agency 6. One evaluation 6. As consultant or contractor to director of program being evaluated
7. By outside agency 7. Successive evaluations 7. Directly to outside funding agency which supports the program
8. By outside agency 8. One evaluation 8. Directly to outside funding agency which supports the program
104 Part I • Introduction to Evaluation
evaluators is useful in considering the types of problems each can deal with more effectively, and it helps us to recognize the complex influence of personal, interpersonal, financial, and organizational factors on the ethical behavior of evaluators.
A final important consideration when considering the influence of organiza- tional and financial relationships on bias is whether the evaluation is primarily form- ative or summative. In considering the pros and cons of an evaluator’s financial and administrative dependence or independence from the client, such dependence may be not only tolerable in a formative evaluation, but even desirable. The internal eval- uator’s relationship with the organization may prompt him to be more responsive to particular information needs of the program and the organization because of his greater understanding and loyalty to the organization. Or, as Mathison notes, the in- ternal evaluator’s close relationship with the organization can prompt him to sustain dialogue on an issue long after the external evaluator has gone and to improve the nature of that dialogue because he knows the values and beliefs of those in the or- ganization. However, an internal evaluator may not be so effective for a summative evaluation, particularly if the evaluation concerns large, costly, or high-profile pro- grams. In this case, the internal evaluator’s relationships with the organization and its employees, especially if the internal evaluator is affiliated with the unit operating the program, are quite likely to introduce bias. An external, independent evaluator is generally to be preferred in summative evaluations of this type. As we have noted in the prior section, though, independence is defined by a variety of factors.