Evaluation for
 

Improvement
 

A Seven-Step 

Empowerment Evaluation Approach 

For Violence Prevention Organizations

Evaluation for Improvement: 


A Seven-Step Empowerment Evaluation Approach 


For Violence Prevention Organizations 


is a publication of the 


National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

Thomas R. Frieden, MD, MPH, Director
 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
 

Louise Galaska, MPA, Acting Director
 

Division of Violence Prevention
 

W. Rodney Hammond, PhD, Director 

Authors
 

Pamela J. Cox, PhD
 

Dana Keener, PhD
 

Tiffanee L. Woodard, MFT
 

Abraham H. Wandersman, PhD
 

Editor
 

Carole A. Craft
 

Suggested citation: 


Cox PJ, Keener D, Woodard T, Wandersman A. Evaluation for Improvement: A Seven Step Empowerment Evaluation Approach for Violence 


Prevention Organizations. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2009.
 

CS204075-A 

1
Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Acknowledgements
 

Grantees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through 

Alliances (DELTA) Program and the Enhancing and Making Programs and Outcomes Work to End Rape (EMPOWER) Program were 

instrumental in the development of this publication. All DELTA and EMPOWER Program grantees used an early draft of this manual to hire 

empowerment evaluators. The experiences, lessons, and insights from their hiring processes are shared throughout this manual. 

DELTA Program Grantees 

z Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault 

z California Partnership to End Domestic Violence 

z Delaware Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

z Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

z Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

z Michigan Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence 

z Montana Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence 

z North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

z North Dakota Council on Abused Women’s Services/ 

Coalition Against Sexual Assault 

z New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

z Ohio Domestic Violence Network 

z Rhode Island Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

z Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance 

z Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence 

EMPOWER Program Grantees 

z Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

z Kentucky Department for Health and Family Services 

z Massachusetts Department of Public Health 

z New Jersey Department of Community Affairs 

z North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services 

z North Dakota Department of Health 

2
Acknowledgements 

The following individuals provided substantial input and feedback on earlier drafts of this manual: 

Christopher Allen
 

University of South Carolina
 

Sandra Cashman
 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

Lorien Castelle
 

New York State Coalition Against Domestic Violence
 

Anne Ciemnecki
 

Mathematica Policy Research , Inc.
 

Rebecca Cline
 

Ohio Domestic Violence Network
 

Jennifer Duffy
 

University of South Carolina
 

David Fetterman 


Stanford University
 

Catherine Guerrero
 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
 

Wayne Harding 


Northeast Center for the 


Advancement of Prevention Technology
 

Jo Ann Harris
 

North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence
 

Becca Horwitz
 

University of South Carolina
 

Karen Lane
 

Montana Coalition Against Domestic and 


Sexual Violence
 

Karen Lang 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

Nicola Miller
 

Hawaii Department of Health
 

Janelle Moos 


North Dakota Council on Abused Women’s Services/Coalition 


Against Sexual Assault
 

Susan Ramspacher
 

Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence
 

Betsy Randall-David
 

Center for Creative Education
 

Marilyn Ray
 

Finger Lakes Law & Social Policy Center, Inc.
 

Emily Rothman
 

Boston University School of Public Health
 

Janice Yost
 

The Health Foundation of Central Massachusetts, Inc.
 

3
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation
 

Table of Contents
 

List of Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
 

List of Worksheets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Acronyms Used in This Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
 

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
 

Purpose and Scope of This Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
 

Empowerment Evaluation: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

Principles of Empowerment Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
 

Frequently Asked Questions About Empowerment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
 

Roles in Empowerment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
 

Step 1: Preparing for the Hiring Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Decide If Empowerment Evaluation Is Right For Your Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
 

Develop a Hiring Plan and Track Your Progress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 

Step 2: Writing a Job Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 

Define the Type of Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 

Define Responsibilities and Deliverables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
 

Define Required and Preferred Qualifications for the Position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
 

Step 3: Finding Potential Empowerment Evaluators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

Know Where to Look for Candidates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
 

Advertise Your Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
 

Invite Potential Candidates to Apply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
 

Step 4: Assessing the Candidates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Review Resumes and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Develop an Interview Plan and Conduct Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
 

Review Work Samples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Check References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Select the Best Candidate(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
 

Make a Job Offer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
 

Step 5: Writing An Evaluation Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
 

Define the Scope of Work and Deliverables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
 

Define a Payment Rate and Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
 

Specify Personnel When Contracting with an Evaluation Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 

State Conditions for Termination and Steps to Address Performance Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 

Have an Attorney Review Your Contract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
 

4
 

 

 

 

 

 

Step 6: Building an Effective Relationship With Your Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
 

Establish an Empowerment Evaluation Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
 

Conduct an Orientation for the Evaluation Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
 

Establish Roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
 

Establish a Communication Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
 

Review Contract Information Regarding Performance Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
 

Have a Plan for When Things Go Wrong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
 

Step 7: Assessing and Sustaining the Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

Make Sure You Are Really Doing Empowerment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

Continue the Evaluation Process After the Evaluation Contract Ends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
 

Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
 

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
 

Appendix A: Resources for General Evaluation and Empowerment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

General Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
 

Empowerment Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
 

Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
 

Appendix C: Sample Hiring Committee Confidentiality Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
 

Appendix D: Sample Job Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
 

Metropolitan Area Women’s Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
 

Appendix E: Sample Request For Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
 

Appendix F: Sample Interview Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Questions About Evaluation Orientation and/or Empowerment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Questions Related to Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Questions Related to the Position Being Offered . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Questions about Cultural Competence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
 

Questions About Negotiating Challenges, Facilitating Collaboration, and 

Building Capacity Among Community Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 

Questions When Interviewing an Evaluation Team 

(Firms/Organizations or University-Based) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
 

Appendix G: Sample Budget and Narrative for an Evaluation Team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
 

5
 

 

 

 

List of Tables 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Table 1. 

Empowerment Evaluation Principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
 

Table 2. 

Role of the Organization in Empowerment Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
 

Table 3. 

Role of the Evaluator in Empowerment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
 

Table 4. 

Role of the Funder in Empowerment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
 

Table 5. 

Empowerment Evaluation: Coaching and Structured Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
 

Table 6. 

Steps and Tasks in Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
 

Table 7. 

Common Job Responsibilities and Deliverables of an Empowerment Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
 

Table 8. 

Suggested Qualifications for an Empowerment Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
 

Table 9. 

Listservs for Locating Potential Empowerment Evaluators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
 

Table 10. 

Job Banks for Locating Potential Empowerment Evaluators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
 

Table 11. 

Common Elements of an Evaluation Contract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
 

6
 

 

 

List of Worksheets
 

Worksheet 1. Resources for Empowerment Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
 

Worksheet 2. Hiring Committee Checklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
 

Worksheet 3. Tracking Progress for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
 

Worksheet 4. Defining Job Responsibilities and Deliverables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
 

Worksheet 5. Defining Qualifications of the Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
 

Worksheet 6. Resume Review10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
 

Worksheet 7. Interview Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
 

Worksheet 8. Interview Performance Rating11 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
 

Worksheet 9. Writing Sample Review2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
 

Worksheet 10. Candidate Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
 

Worksheet 11. Candidate Ranking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
 

Worksheet 12. Empowerment Evaluation Principles Role Assessment14. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
 

Acronyms Used in This Manual 

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

DELTA Domestic Violence Prevention Enhancements and Leadership Through Alliances 

EMPOWER Enhancing and Making Programs and Outcomes Work to End Rape 

IPV Intimate Partner Violence 

RFP Request for Proposals 

SV Sexual Violence 

7
8

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
Introduction
 

Introduction
 

Any organization working to prevent violence—whether sexual 

violence,1

 intimate partner violence, youth violence, 

suicide, or child maltreatment—wants to know if what it 

is doing is making a difference. Are protective factors against 

violence increasing? Are risk factors for violence decreasing? Are 

rates of violence decreasing over time? Are there fewer perpetrators 

and fewer victims than there were in the past? Are communities, 

families, and individuals healthier and safer now than they 

were before? 

Evaluation can help violence prevention organizations answer 

these and other questions and provide opportunities for these 

organizations to improve their strategies2

 so they are more likely 

to prevent violence. For this reason, evaluation is becoming a more 

common practice within organizations, and more funders are 

requiring grant recipients to evaluate their strategies. 

CDC defines evaluation as “the systematic collection of 

information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes 

of strategies (i.e., programs) to make judgments about the 

strategy, improve strategy effectiveness, and/or inform decisions 

about future strategy development” (based on Michael Patton’s 

definition as cited in U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services [U.S. DHHS], 2005, p. 1). What differentiates evaluation 

from other organizational methods used to assess how strategies 

are making a difference is a focus on assessing the merit, worth, 

and significance of a strategy through the systematic collection of 

information (CDC, 1999). Evaluation can help organizations reduce 

uncertainties, improve a strategy’s ability to achieve its stated 

goals and outcomes, and make decisions regarding such things as 

resource allocation (University of Texas – Houston Health Science 

Center, 1998). For these reasons, evaluation processes and findings 

can be viewed as complementing, rather than competing with, an 

organization’s regular management processes, including budgeting 

and strategic planning. 

However, evaluation is not always sufficiently well-integrated 

into the day-to-day management of most organizations. Many 

reasons account for this. One reason is the concern that evaluation 

may take time and resources away from strategy implementation. 

Another reason is that evaluation has traditionally not been 

structured in a manner that facilitated its integration into the dayto-day operations of an organization. Specifically, organizations 

have traditionally hired an independent evaluator to conduct 

an evaluation of their strategies for them (Rossi, Freeman & 

Lipsey, 1999). These evaluators often worked hard to understand 

stakeholders’ needs and concerns and develop an evaluation 

plan to address these concerns and help improve the strategy. The 

evaluators then submitted an evaluation report to the organization 

at the conclusion of the evaluation. This report may or may not 

have been used by the organization to improve its strategies 

and integrate evaluation into the day-to-day management of 

the organization. Finally, organizations are often reluctant to 

pursue evaluation out of concerns that funders may use negative 

evaluation findings to justify funding reductions. 

These concerns and experiences with independent evaluation led 

to the development of participatory evaluation approaches 

as a way to promote an organization’s use of evaluation for 

the improvement of its strategies. Although there are many 

participatory evaluation approaches, empowerment evaluation 

places an explicit emphasis on building the evaluation capacity of 

individuals and organizations so that evaluation is integrated into 

the organization’s day-to-day management processes. Through 

empowerment evaluation, both individual and organizational 

evaluation capacity are increased through a “learn-by-doing” 

process, whereby organizations and their staff evaluate their 

own strategies. Specifically, organizations hire an evaluator to 

work with them in conducting an evaluation of their strategies. 

Rather than evaluating an organization’s strategies and presenting 

an evaluation “report card,” empowerment evaluators coach 

individuals and organizations through an evaluation of their own 

strategy(ies) by providing them with the knowledge, skills, and 

resources they need to conduct just such an evaluation. 

As a result of the empowerment evaluation process, organizational 

and individual evaluation capacity are improved and a strategy’s 

ability to achieve its stated goals and outcomes is also improved. 

It is hoped that through empowerment evaluation, evaluation will 

be established as an essential practice within violence prevention 

organizations, thereby making our efforts more effective and 

efficient in saving people from experiencing intimate partner 

violence, sexual violence, child maltreatment, youth violence, 

and suicide. 

1 All terms in bold are defined in the glossary. 

2 The term strategy, rather than program, is used in this manual to describe violence 

prevention efforts across levels (i.e., individual, relationship, community, and society) of 

the social ecological model and to coincide with the empowerment evaluation principles 

of evidence-based strategies described on page 14. For more information on violence 

prevention efforts across levels of the social ecology, access Beginning the Dialogue at http:// 

www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/SVPrevention.pdf. 

9
Purpose and Scope of This Manual 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

This manual is designed to help violence prevention organizations 

hire an empowerment evaluator who will assist them in building 

their evaluation capacity through a learn-by-doing process of 

evaluating their own strategies. It is for state and local leaders 

and staff members of organizations, coalitions, government 

agencies, and/or partnerships working to prevent sexual violence, 

intimate partner violence, youth violence, suicide, and/or child 

maltreatment. Some parts of the manual may also be useful to 

empowerment evaluators who work with these organizations. 

The manual discusses seven steps an organization might take to 

hire an empowerment evaluator: 

1. Preparing for the hiring process 

2. Writing a job announcement 

3. Finding potential empowerment evaluators 

4. Assessing the candidates 

5. Writing an evaluation contract 

6. Building an effective relationship with your evaluator 

7. Assessing and sustaining the evaluation 

The glossary on page 68 defines key terms found in bold 

throughout the manual. The appendices provide resources, 

worksheets, and sample documents to make the process of hiring 

an empowerment evaluator easier. 

Additionally, the manual includes “Field Notes,” which document 

the experiences and lessons from CDC’s DELTA and EMPOWER 

Program grantees in hiring empowerment evaluators. The DELTA 

and EMPOWER Programs are CDC’s intimate partner violence 

and sexual violence prevention programs, respectively, that have 

utilized empowerment evaluators to build evaluation capacity at 

the state and local levels. In the DELTA Program, fourteen state 

domestic violence coalitions, which are not-for-profit organizations, 

hired empowerment evaluators to support their development 

of a data-driven state level intimate partner violence prevention 

plan and to build the evaluation capacity of local coalitions that 

received DELTA funding. Through the learn-by-doing process, 

these empowerment evaluators supported these local coalitions 

in evaluating their strategies and their capacity building efforts. 

In the EMPOWER Program, six state health departments hired 

empowerment evaluators to support their development of a datadriven state level sexual violence prevention plan. Although the 

DELTA and EMPOWER Programs focus on intimate partner violence 

and sexual violence prevention, respectively, their experiences and 

lessons in hiring an empowerment evaluator may be relevant to 

organizations addressing other types of violence. Their experiences 

and lessons illustrate practical application of the steps described 

in the manual by both not-for-profit and state-level government 

agencies, thereby offering encouragement and highlighting 

different ways organizations have negotiated the same step. “Notes 

from the Literature”, which are from the published literature on 

empowerment evaluation, are also provided. 

Hiring an empowerment evaluator is a significant step in 

establishing an ongoing practice of evaluation within your 

organization. This manual will help prepare your organization 

to take that step. However, this manual does not describe in 

detail how to do empowerment evaluation or any other type 

of evaluation. Resources for conducting general evaluation and 

empowerment evaluation are provided in Appendix A on page 73. 

3

 More information on the DELTA and EMPOWER Programs can be found on CDC’s website at: 

www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/DELTA and www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/EMPOWER. 

10
 

Empowerment Evaluation: An Overview 

Empowerment Evaluation: An Overview
 

“Empowerment Evaluation aims to increase the probability of 

achieving program success by 1) providing program stakeholders 

with tools for planning, implementation, and self-evaluation of their 

program, and 2) mainstreaming evaluation as part of the planning 

and management of the program/organization.”

 Wandersman et al., 2005, p.28 

Empowerment evaluation helps organizations improve their efforts 

to prevent violence by building their capacity to do evaluation and 

to use evaluation results to improve strategies. Empowerment 

evaluation is a learn-by-doing process, whereby evaluators train 

an organization’s staff on how to evaluate their own strategies and 

facilitate the organization’s initial evaluation efforts. The long-term 

goal of empowerment evaluation is for an organization to be able 

to evaluate its strategies on its own without the assistance of the 

empowerment evaluator. 

The exact structure of the empowerment evaluation training and 

facilitation process is determined by each organization and their 

empowerment evaluator. However, the structure generally can 

be characterized as the empowerment evaluator coaching an 

organization’s staff to: 

z Engage stakeholders, 

z Describe the strategy, 

z Choose an evaluation design, 

z Gather credible evidence, 

z Write reports that justify their conclusions, and 

z Work to ensure that evaluation results are used to improve 

organizational evaluation capacity and the particular strategy 

evaluated (CDC, 1999) 

Through the empowerment evaluation approach, organizations 

are able to develop new insights into how their strategies work 

and what factors support or impede a strategy’s ability to achieve 

positive outcomes (e.g., organizational resources, how staff is 

trained to implement the strategy). Eventually, organizations 

are able to conduct their own evaluations without the assistance 

of the evaluator and integrate evaluation into their day-to-day 

management practices. 

Principles of 

Empowerment Evaluation 

Table 1 lists the 10 principles that define the values and philosophy 

of empowerment evaluation (Wandersman, et al., 2005). Although 

some of the principles apply to other types of evaluation as well, 

the combination of all 10, taken together, makes empowerment 

evaluation unique. These principles reflect the ideas that 

individuals are empowered when they are able to work with 

others, learn decision-making skills, and manage resources and 

that empowering organizational processes are those that provide 

opportunities for shared responsibility and leadership (Miller & 

Campbell, 2006). 

The consistent practice of all 10 principles is a goal that 

organizations are most likely to achieve over time, not something 

that will immediately occur once an organization decides to use an 

empowerment evaluation approach. For some organizations, many 

of the principles will be fully developed at the start of working 

with an empowerment evaluator. For other organizations, the full 

development of even a few of these principles will take time. Each 

organization’s current and future demonstration of these principles 

will be unique. Overall, empowerment evaluators and stakeholders 

are encouraged to balance the 10 principles in their work and to not 

let any one single principle dominate their evaluation work. 

Organizations should also understand that fidelity to these 

principles and building individual and organizational evaluation 

capacity through the empowerment evaluation approach is time 

consuming. However, the long-term benefit of the empowerment 

evaluation approach is an organization that is able to continuously 

improve its strategies and organizational processes without the 

need of an independent evaluation consultant. Organizations that 

currently need a more expeditious evaluation of their strategies 

than empowerment evaluation provides should consider retaining 

the services of and independent evaluator who can evaluate their 

strategies for them. (see Harding, 2000). 

More information on how to determine if empowerment evaluation 

is appropriate for your organization is provided in the Step 1: 

Preparing for the Hiring Process, which starts on page 23. 

11
12

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
Empowerment Evaluation: An Overview 

Table 1. Empowerment Evaluation Principles4
 

Principle Role of the Violence Prevention Organization
 

Community Empowerment evaluation places the primary responsibility and ownership for building the organization’s evaluation 

ownership capacity and evaluating the organization’s strategies with the organization and not the empowerment evaluator. 

An empowerment evaluator is just one voice among many. The empowerment evaluator initially provides expertise, 

coaching, training, tools, and technical assistance to the organization as it evaluates one or more of its strategies 

and builds its evaluation capacity. Eventually, organizational stakeholders have the capacity to conduct their own 

evaluations. 

Inclusion Empowerment evaluation involves the representation and participation of key stakeholders. 

Democratic Empowerment evaluation is a highly collaborative process. Stakeholders are given the opportunity to voice questions, 

participation concerns, and values throughout the evaluation process. Every stakeholder’s voice is to be heard and valued equally. 

Community Empowerment evaluation values and promotes the knowledge present within violence prevention organizations 

knowledge and the communities within which they work. Organizational and community stakeholders, not evaluators, are 

considered to be in the best position to understand the community’s problems and to generate solutions to those 

problems. 

Evidence-based Empowerment evaluation promotes the use of strategies with high-quality (i.e., research) evidence of their 

strategies effectiveness so that organizations can use their resources to select, implement, and evaluate strategies that have a 

high likelihood of preventing violence. Evidence-based strategies are often complemented by community knowledge 

to ensure that a strategy is compatible with the community context. 

Accountability	 Empowerment evaluation provides data that can be used to determine whether a strategy has achieved its goals. 

Negative results are not punished; rather, they are used to inform changes in a strategy or the selection of a new 

strategy for the purpose of producing better outcomes. 

Improvement	 Empowerment evaluation helps organizations to improve their strategies so that they are more likely to achieve 

their stated goals and outcomes through activities such as needs assessments, assessments of the strategy’s design, 

process evaluation and outcome evaluation (Rossi et al., 1999). 

Organizational Empowerment evaluation fosters a culture of learning within organizations. Stakeholders come to view positive 

learning and negative evaluation results as valuable information that guides strategy improvement and to believe that every 

strategy can be improved. 

Social justice	 Empowerment evaluation increases an organization’s evaluation capacity to implement strategies that work to 

reduce health disparities that affect groups marginalized (Brennan Ramirez, Baker, Metzler, 2008) by discrimination, 

persecution, prejudice, and intolerance 

Capacity building	 Empowerment evaluation builds individual and organizational evaluation capacity so that stakeholders are better 

able to conduct their own evaluations, understand results, and use them to continuously improve their strategies and 

their organization. 

4

 Based on Wandersman, et al. (2005). 

13
Frequently Asked Questions About Empowerment Evaluation5 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Why was empowerment evaluation 

developed? 

Empowerment evaluation was developed to overcome practitioner 

concerns that the independent evaluation structure, whereby 

an organization hires an external evaluator to evaluate the 

organization’s strategies, often impedes the use of evaluation 

findings for strategy improvement and the building of the 

organization’s evaluation capacity. Specifically, practitioners 

have been concerned that under an independent evaluation 

structure, stakeholders are not adequately engaged in the 

overall evaluation process and evaluation reports are submitted 

too late (i.e., often after funding ends) to inform strategy and 

organizational improvement. Empowerment evaluation attempts 

to reduce or eliminate these concerns by introducing a different 

type of evaluation structure that has an empowerment evaluator 

providing training, technical assistance and tools to organizational 

stakeholders in how to conduct their own evaluations and improve 

their organization’s evaluation capacity. 

Who participates in empowerment evaluation? 

Empowerment evaluation is an inclusive process. Ideally, 

representatives from an organization’s key stakeholder groups 

participate in the empowerment evaluation learn-by-doing 

process. These key stakeholders include funders, organizational 

leadership and staff, community participants, and evaluators. 

These stakeholders hold each other accountable for improving 

the organization’s evaluation capacity and the ability of strategies 

to achieve their stated goals and outcomes. Together these key 

stakeholders conduct all the key tasks of an evaluation including 

describing the strategy, choosing an evaluation design, gathering 

credible information, writing reports justifying their conclusions, 

and working to ensure that evaluation results are used to improve 

organizational evaluation capacity and the particular strategy 

being evaluated (CDC, 1999). 

When is empowerment evaluation 

appropriate? 

Empowerment evaluation is most appropriate when an 

organization would like to build its own evaluation capacity and 

improve the ability of its strategies to achieve their stated goals 

and outcomes on an on-going basis. As used within empowerment 

evaluation, improving the ability of a strategy to achieve its stated 

goals and outcomes means describing the strategy based on 

stakeholders’ current understanding, evaluating the strategy, and 

taking that strategy to its next level of ability to meet its stated 

goals and outcomes based on the evaluation results and the 

current resources of the organization. In some cases, improvement 

will necessitate the choosing of a different strategy in order to 

achieve the stated goals and outcomes. Evaluating the strategy 

includes activities such as needs assessments, assessing the 

strategy’s design, process evaluation, outcome evaluation or a 

combination of these activities (Rossi et al., 1999). Any one of these 

evaluation activities can produce information that can improve 

a strategy’s ability to achieve its stated goals and outcomes. 

Like other approaches to evaluation, including independent 

evaluation, the specific evaluation activities to be used during the 

empowerment evaluation process to evaluate a particular strategy 

will be dependent upon various factors such as the purpose of 

the evaluation, the stage of development of the strategy to be 

evaluated, and the resources available to conduct the evaluation 

(Rossi et al., 1999). 

Ideally, empowerment evaluation begins in the early stages of 

strategy planning; however, it can also be used for strategies that 

are already being implemented. Empowerment evaluation is not 

as appropriate as research utilizing experimental designs when 

the purpose of an evaluation is to prove a strategy’s effectiveness, 

typically through the use of control and comparison groups. 

Where has empowerment evaluation 

been used? 

Empowerment evaluation has been used around the world in 

health and human service programs, nonprofit organizations, 

education, business, foundations, faith communities, and 

government. It has been used to evaluate strategies and initiatives 

at local, state, and national levels. Empowerment evaluation can be 

used anywhere there is a desire to build evaluation capacity for the 

purpose of improving strategies and integrating evaluation into the 

organization’s day-to-day management processes. 

How is empowerment evaluation different 

from independent evaluation? 

As noted above, independent evaluations are often structured in a 

manner whereby an external evaluator conducts an evaluation of 

an organization’s strategy. The appeal of independent evaluation 

to many stakeholders, especially funders, is its perceived rigor and 

objectivity. Independent evaluators may be researchers who utilize 

their own resources or research funding to determine what will 

be evaluated and how the evaluation will be done (Rossi et al., 

1999). In another type of independent evaluation, an organization 

5 14 Based on Wandersman & Snell-Johns (2005, p. 422). 
Empowerment Evaluation: An Overview 

may hire an evaluator, who may or may not be a researcher, 

to determine how an evaluation will be done. In this case, the 

organization has already determined what will be evaluated and 

leaves it to the independent evaluator to determine how to conduct 

the evaluation. 

Independent evaluators often consult with stakeholders about a 

strategy’s purpose, implementation, and intended outcomes and 

then decide how the evaluation should be designed and conducted. 

The conclusion of many independent evaluations is the submission 

of an evaluation report that states whether or not the strategy 

achieved its stated goals and outcomes and recommend how to 

improve the strategy. Independent evaluation does not make 

building an organization’s evaluation capacity a priority. 

However, since the early 1980s many evaluators have questioned 

the appropriateness of independent evaluation models that 

utilize the rigor and control standards of academic research for 

the evaluation of strategies implemented in real world settings 

that are beyond the control of the organization (Cook & Shadish, 

1987; Dugan, 1996; Fetterman, 1982, 1994; Mayer, 1996; Rossi & 

Freeman, 1989). Additionally, many practitioners have questioned 

the appropriateness of independent evaluation models that 

are intended to help improve a strategy, yet provide that very 

information after the strategy has ended, generally when grant 

funding has ended. Finally, evaluators and practitioners alike have 

lamented about how often evaluation findings have gone unread 

and unused. 

Empowerment evaluation seeks to make evaluation more useful 

to organizations by building individual and organizational 

capacity to conduct evaluations and use evaluation results to 

improve strategies and organizational evaluation capacity. With 

empowerment evaluation, organizations can make corrections to 

improve their strategies based on real time data. Organizations 

using an empowerment evaluation approach may use many of 

the same techniques for data collection and analysis that are 

used by independent evaluators, but they do so in a manner that 

reflects the 10 principles of empowerment evaluation and focuses 

on real-time improvement of strategies and the organization 

implementing those strategies. 

Independent evaluation and empowerment evaluation can 

complement each other. Empowerment evaluation can be helpful 

in identifying promising strategies that can then be more rigorously 

tested through independent evaluation or research for their 

preventative effects (Fetterman, 2001a). 

How is empowerment evaluation different 

from participatory evaluation? 

Participatory evaluation includes a growing variety of evaluation 

approaches whereby evaluators work with stakeholders to 

determine what is to be evaluated and how the evaluation will 

be conducted (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). The extent of this 

collaboration can vary tremendously along five dimensions: control 

of decision making, diversity among stakeholders who participate, 

power relations among participating stakeholders, manageability 

of evaluation implementation, and depth of participation (Weaver 

& Cousins, 2004). 

Empowerment evaluation is one type of participatory evaluation 

that places a strong emphasis on stakeholder control of the 

decision-making process, a diverse group of participating 

stakeholders, and active engagement by stakeholders (Weaver 

& Cousins, 2004). Other types of participatory evaluation can 

emphasize evaluator control of the decision-making process and 

minimal participation by only a few stakeholders. Empowerment 

evaluation also emphasizes a democratic and transparent decisionmaking process that reduces the possibility of imbalances of power 

among stakeholders. Other types of participatory evaluation may 

not address imbalances of power among stakeholders at all. Under 

all forms of participatory evaluation, including empowerment 

evaluation, the manageability of evaluation implementation may 

vary greatly from the evaluation of one strategy to another. 

Is empowerment evaluation accurate? 

All forms of evaluation are vulnerable to inaccuracies due to errors 

in design and measurement. Empowerment evaluation results 

can be as accurate as results from any other form of evaluation. 

Empowerment evaluation adheres to the Program Evaluation 

Standards as defined by the Joint Committee on Standards for 

Educational Evaluation (1994). These standards are grouped into 

four categories: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. The 

standards are intended to ensure that the evaluation meets the 

information needs of stakeholders and that in meeting these 

information needs the evaluation is viable, pragmatic, and ethical 

while producing findings that are considered correct (CDC, 1999). 

As part of the evaluation capacity-building process, empowerment 

evaluators should provide tools, training, and technical assistance 

to the organizations they coach on how to meet these standards 

when evaluating their strategies. 

See CDC’s (1999) Framework for Program Evaluation, specifically 

pages 26–30, and Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public 

Health Programs: A self-study guide (U.S. DHHS, 2005) for more 

in-depth discussion and examples of these standards. 

15
What methods are used to do empowerment 

evaluation? 

be integrated into the organization’s day-to-day management 

processes. There is no official list of empowerment evaluators 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

The particular evaluation methods used to evaluate any 

strategy are mainly determined by factors such as the purpose 

of the evaluation, the stage of development of the strategy 

to be evaluated, and the resources available to conduct the 

evaluation and not whether or not an empowerment evaluation 

approach is being used. Thus, the evaluation methods used in 

an empowerment evaluation are often similar to those used in 

participatory evaluation or independent evaluation. 

Are there specific steps that need to be 

followed in empowerment evaluation? 

There are no specific steps that must be followed within 

empowerment evaluation. However, three models can inform how 

organizations and their empowerment evaluators work to evaluate 

strategies and improve an organization’s evaluation capacity. 

The first model is from CDC’s (1999) Framework for Program 

Evaluation in Public Health. This model contains six steps: engaging 

stakeholders, describing the strategy, focusing the evaluation 

design, gathering credible evidence, justifying conclusions, and 

ensuring that evaluation results are used. The second model is 

Fetterman’s (2001b) 3-step approach to empowerment evaluation: 

defining the mission, taking stock, and planning for the future. 

The third model is Getting to Outcomes, a 10-step approach to 

planning, implementing, evaluating and sustaining strategies 

(Chinman, Imm & Wandersman, 2004). These ten steps are: 

conducting a needs and resources assessment; developing goals 

and outcomes; selecting evidence-based strategies, assessing 

the strategy’s fit, building capacity, finalizing a plan, conducting 

a process evaluation, conducting an outcome evaluation, 

implementing continuous quality improvement, and sustaining 

efforts. 

After reviewing these and other models, organizations and their 

empowerment evaluators can determine if one model alone, 

several models in combination or another model would be best to 

meet their needs. 

Who is (or can be) an empowerment evaluator? 

An empowerment evaluator is any professional evaluator whose 

work is guided by the purpose and principles of empowerment 

evaluation. That is, these evaluators are focused on building 

individual and organizational capacity so that evaluation can 

to choose from, nor is there a formal way to be certified as an 

empowerment evaluator. Empowerment evaluators should be 

chosen based on their willingness, commitment, and ability 

to focus their work on capacity building and not evaluating 

strategies themselves. 

Is empowerment evaluation appropriate for 

violence prevention organizations? 

Any organization must decide for itself whether empowerment 

evaluation is appropriate to meet its evaluation needs. However, 

for several reasons, empowerment evaluation may be a 

particularly good option for violence prevention organizations. 

For one, few evidence-based strategies are currently available 

for the prevention of certain types of violence (i.e., intimate 

partner violence and sexual violence). Therefore, organizations 

that want to prevent these types of violence often develop new 

strategies. Empowerment evaluation is an especially good tool for 

developing these new strategies because of its focus on utilizing 

information from needs assessments, assessment of the strategy’s 

design, process evaluation and outcome evaluation for strategy 

improvement. As noted above, results from these empowerment 

evaluation activities can be helpful in identifying promising 

strategies that can then be more rigorously tested by independent 

evaluation or research for their preventative effects (Fetterman, 

2001a). Thus, for fields lacking a substantial inventory of evidencebased strategies, empowerment evaluation can aid in the 

identification of strategies that may suitable for research studies 

that could lead to their classification as evidence-based strategies. 

Empowerment evaluation may also be attractive to violence 

prevention organizations because of its commitment to community 

knowledge, community ownership, democratic participation, and 

social justice. 

A more detailed process for deciding if empowerment evaluation is 

right for your organization can be found in Step 1: Preparing for the 

Hiring Process, which starts on page 23. 

16
Empowerment Evaluation: An Overview 

Roles in Empowerment Evaluation
 

In any evaluation, the organization and evaluator have specific 

roles and responsibilities. Within empowerment evaluation, 

funders also have specific roles and responsibilities. Tables 2-4 on 

the following pages describe each of the roles for the organization, 

the empowerment evaluator, and the funder in relation to the 10 

principles of empowerment evaluation. These roles are ideal. At 

the outset of an empowerment evaluation process, organizations, 

empowerment evaluators, and funders may demonstrate only 

certain aspects of the roles described in Tables 2–4. That’s OK. The 

empowerment evaluation process is intended to be just that—a 

process, whereby organizations, evaluators, and funders build their 

capacities over time. A more detailed description of these three 

roles can be found in Fetterman (2005). 

17
Table 2. Role of the Organization in Empowerment Evaluation6 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Principle Role of the Violence Prevention Organization 

Community 

ownership 

z Assume responsibility for the oversight and direction of the evaluation capacity–building process and evaluations 

of specific strategies from the beginning of the contract with your evaluator. 

z If challenged, defend your organization’s ownership of the evaluation capacity–building process, evaluation 

activities, and any evaluation results 

Inclusion z Invite stakeholders representing the political, religious, and cultural diversity of your organization and community 

to attend evaluation meetings. 

z Look for new and diverse partners to help you expand the scope and relevance of your programming and 

evaluation activities. 

Democratic 

participation 

z Commit explicitly to democratic participation as a principle of the evaluation and the evaluation capacity–building 

process. 

z Facilitate an environment in which all stakeholders’ voices are equally heard and valued. 

z Develop decision-making processes that are informed by the democratic participation of stakeholders. 

Community 

knowledge 

z Use your knowledge of community context, demographics, and conditions to choose prevention goals and 

strategies and to interpret evaluation findings. 

Evidence-based 

strategies 

z Work with your evaluator to identify evidence-based strategies or principles that can lead to your strategies 

achieving their stated goals and outcomes. 

z Work with your evaluator to assess whether or not evidence-based strategies need to be adapted to your local 

community context and conditions. 

z Work with your evaluator to adapt evidence-based strategies when appropriate. 

Accountability z Evaluate the implementation and outcomes of your strategy. 

z Identify reasons that actual implementation was different from the plan (process evaluation). 

z Identify potential reasons that desired outcomes were not achieved (outcome evaluation). 

Improvement z Work closely with your evaluator to improve your organization’s evaluation capacity and performance. 

z Use tools to monitor changes over time in evaluation capacity and strategy outcomes. 

z Use data to inform decision making for both organizational and strategy improvement. 

Organizational 

learning 

z Create an organizational climate that is conducive to institutionalizing and learning from evaluation. 

z Make decision making as transparent as possible to all stakeholders. 

z Involve stakeholders in interpreting and evaluating results and in forming recommendations based on the results. 

Social justice z Consider how your organization can extend the potential benefits of your strategy(ies) to all groups within your 

community, especially those groups who are considered underserved and/or at greater risk for experiencing or 

perpetrating violence. 

Capacity building z Participate in evaluation training and technical assistance. 

z Let your evaluator know when you need help or additional coaching in building organizational evaluation capacity 

or evaluating a particular strategy. 

z Expect to learn from mistakes. 

6

18 Adapted from Fetterman (2005). 
Empowerment Evaluation: An Overview 


19
Table 3. Role of the Evaluator in Empowerment Evaluation 

7 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Principle Role of the Evaluator
 

Community 

ownership 

z Understand that the organization owns the evaluation capacity–building process and the process of evaluating 

particular strategies. 

z Serve as a coach rather than a controller of these processes. 

z Support and encourage organizational staff to take responsibility for the evaluation process, and provide tools and 

training so that the organization can conduct its own evaluations in the future. 

Inclusion z Know the demographics of the organization and its community. 

z Ask the organization to invite representatives from key internal and external stakeholder groups to empowerment 

evaluation meetings and activities, including political and religious leaders and members of different cultural 

groups in the community served. 

Democratic 

participation 

z Facilitate an environment in which all voices are equally heard and valued. 

z Monitor the level of democratic participation and decision making occurring in the organization and provide feedback. 

Community 

knowledge 

z Support the use of organizational and community knowledge in building evaluation capacity and 

evaluating specific strategies. 

z Help the organization combine community knowledge with evidence-based strategies. 

Evidence-based 

strategies 

z Help identify and promote evidence-based strategies and principles. 

z Help the organization assess whether or not evidence-based strategies need to be adapted to the 

local community context and conditions. 

z Work with stakeholders to adapt evidence-based strategies when appropriate. 

z Coach organizations to use process and outcome evaluation data to improve their implementation of evidencebased strategies and their organization’s capacity-building efforts. 

Accountability z Identify and suggest appropriate tools, measures, and methods to evaluate the results of particular strategies and 

evaluation capacity–building efforts. 

z Facilitate an environment in which the organization holds itself accountable for reaching its desired outcomes. 

Improvement z Help the organization focus on improvement, instead of only on problems. 

z Help the organization use evaluation results for future decision making. 

z Help the organization internalize the goals, strategies, and desired outcomes of its strategies. 

Organizational 

learning 

z Facilitate an environment that values and demonstrates organizational learning. 

z Help the organization interpret and use data to inform decision making and to make evaluation part of the 

planning and management of the organization. 

z Help the organization integrate evaluation in its structures, processes, resources, and programmatic activities. 

Social justice z Help the organization extend the potential benefits of its strategy(ies) to all groups within its community, especially 

those groups who are considered underserved and/or at greater risk for experiencing or perpetrating violence. 

Capacity building z Provide training and technical assistance to help the organization build its evaluation capacity. 

z Provide more support early in the evaluation process and gradually reduce support as the evaluation 

capacity of the organization increases. 

20 7

 Adapted from Fetterman (2005). 
Empowerment Evaluation: An Overview 

Table 4. Role of the Funder in Empowerment Evaluation8
 

Principle Role of the Funder
 

Community z Respect the autonomy of the funded organization. 

ownership z Encourage organizational and community ownership of the evaluation capacity–building process and the process 

of evaluating any specific strategies. 

Inclusion z Expect and encourage the evaluation process to be inclusive of all stakeholders. 

z Provide sufficient financial support for inclusive participation. 

Democratic z Support democratic participation with appropriate funding and an appreciation for the additional time required to 

participation build evaluation capacity and report results from evaluations of specific strategies. 

Community z Recognize and validate the use of organizational and community knowledge in planning and evaluation. 

knowledge 

Evidence-based z Expect and encourage the use of evidence-based strategies and principles. 

strategies z Encourage adaptation of evidence-based strategies to the local community context and 

conditions when appropriate. 

z Encourage organizations to use process and outcome evaluation data to improve their implementation of 

evidence-based strategies. 

Accountability z Work with the organization to measure and report the results of the capacity-building efforts and to use evaluation 

results to improve strategies. 

z Support the evaluator in assisting the organization in evaluation of its strategies in a manner consistent with the 

principles of empowerment evaluation. 

z Provide sufficient financial support, expertise, and guidance to the evaluation capacity-building effort. 

Improvement z Provide the financial support needed for intensive individual and organizational evaluation capacity 

building and evaluation. 

z Participate in problem solving geared towards strategy and organizational improvement. 

z Encourage the use of an evaluation design that focuses on strategy improvement. 

Organizational z Expect organizations to use the evaluation results for future decision making. 

learning z Support organizations in sustaining their evaluation capacity–building efforts. 

Social justice z Help the organization extend the potential benefits of its strategy(ies) to all groups within its community, 

especially those groups who are considered underserved and/or at greater risk for experiencing or 

perpetrating violence. 

Capacity building z Value and support individual and organizational evaluation capacity building. 

z Identify and support the use of additional consultants and resources when necessary to build capacity. 

8

 Adapted from Fetterman (2005). 

21
22

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation
Step 1: Preparing for the Hiring Process 

Step 1: Preparing for the Hiring Process
 

Decide If Empowerment Evaluation Is Right For Your Organization 

Empowerment evaluation is particularly well-suited for 

organizations that want to build their evaluation skills, want their 

evaluations to be conducted in alignment with their organization’s 

core values (e.g., improvement, community ownership, social 

justice), and want to institutionalize evaluation within their 

organization (Miller & Campbell, 2006). What type of outcomes 

can organizations expect when using an empowerment evaluation 

approach? They can experience increased use of data for decision 

making, improvement, and policy work; increases in individual 

evaluation skills and knowledge; more positive attitudes toward 

evaluation; and integration of evaluation into the organization’s 

routine activities even after the initial work with an empowerment 

evaluator ends (Campbell et al., 2004; Miller & Campbell, 

2006). Organizations might also see improvements in meeting 

accountability requirements, collaborating and communicating 

with stakeholders, protecting funding, engendering a sense of 

ownership, and sustaining a focus on goals. 

When empowerment evaluation 

is not appropriate 

Empowerment evaluation is not appropriate for every organization 

or every situation. It is inappropriate when: 

z The organization is required by a funder to hire an independent 

evaluator to evaluate one or more of its strategies. In these cases, 

the funder has decided what will be evaluated and leaves it to 

the discretion of the independent evaluator to determine how to 

conduct the evaluation after consulting with stakeholders. This 

type of evaluation is not empowerment evaluation as the main 

focus is not on building the organization’s capacity to evaluate 

its strategies. Additionally, the organization’s limited ability to 

control what will be evaluated and how the evaluation will be 

conducted is not consistent with the empowerment evaluation 

principle of community ownership. 

z The organization is seeking an external evaluator to provide a 

data-based stamp of approval that their strategies are having 

a positive impact (Schnoes, Murphy-Berman, & Chambers, 

2000). In this case, the organization is not seeking to improve 

its evaluation capacity through learning by doing, but it does 

value the rigor and data-driven results produced through an 

evaluation. 

z The organization prefers to use its own subjective standards 

regarding the success of its strategies, such as the staff ’s 

or program director’s feeling about the outcomes achieved 

(Schnoes, Murphy-Berman, & Chambers, 2000). In this case, 

the organization is not ready for building its evaluation capacity 

through empowerment evaluation as it does not value the rigor 

or data-driven results that either an externally conducted or 

empowerment evaluation can produce. 

Is your organization ready for 

empowerment evaluation? 

Although your organization may want to increase stakeholder 

evaluation skills, conduct its own evaluations that are in 

alignment with its core values, and institutionalize evaluation 

(Miller & Campbell, 2006), this desire does not necessarily make 

the organization or its stakeholders ready to participate in an 

empowerment evaluation learn-by-doing process. This section 

provides a general overview of the key issues an organization 

needs to understand and address to determine if it is ready to 

use an empowerment evaluation approach. It is important to 

recognize that no one evaluation approach is appropriate for every 

organization or for each developmental phase of an organization or 

a strategy. Just because your organization may not be ready to use 

an empowerment evaluation approach now does not mean that it 

won’t be in the future. After reviewing the material in this section, 

your organization will be able to determine if empowerment 

evaluation is appropriate at this time based on the organization’s 

operating culture and norms. 

An organizational culture that supports evaluation capacity 

building through an empowerment evaluation approach values 

organizational learning. Such a culture is founded on trust, 

whereby mistakes are viewed as valuable for the lessons learned 

not as opportunities for punishment (Preskill & Torres, 1999). Thus, 

empowerment evaluation is most appropriate for organizations 

that seek to: 

z Increase their organization’s talent pool, 

z Increase the quality and breadth of information that can help 

improve strategies, 

z Provide a systematic, flexible process for stakeholders, 

23
z Increase the likelihood that evaluation will be undertaken and 

results will be used, 

stakeholders, such as funders? If so, a more independent 

evaluation approach may be the best choice at this time.

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

z Improve communication with audiences by writing evaluation 

reports in a form appropriate to the needs/interests of different 

stakeholders (Dugan, 1996). 

Empowerment evaluation is not appropriate for organizations that 

have several of the following operating characteristics and norms 

(Preskill & Torres, 1999): 

z An anti-learning culture, 

z Communication channels and systems are underdeveloped or 

underused to support organizational learning, 

z Information is not shared willingly; the organization holds on to 

a belief that information is power, 

z Dialogue and asking questions are not valued, 

z Organization members do not generally trust one another, 

z There is a fear of making mistakes; risk taking is avoided, 

z Independent work is more highly valued than 

collaborative work, 

z Evaluation activity is seen as threatening the status quo, 

z Evaluation activity is seen as an “event,” 

z Evaluation activity is considered too costly in terms of money, 

time, and/or personnel resources, 

z A general fear of change permeates the organization, 

z People are suspicious of any data collection effort. 

To help your organization and its stakeholders decide whether 

empowerment evaluation is right for you and whether your 

organization is ready to participate in an empowerment evaluation, 

a deliberative process should be undertaken whereby various 

issues are considered and debated among various stakeholders. 

The issues to be addressed are the need for evaluation at this time, 

current attitudes toward evaluation in general, current attitudes 

toward empowerment evaluation, and management support for 

empowerment evaluation. A detailed discussion of each of these 

topics follows. 

Need for evaluation at this time 

An organization should first determine what it needs from an 

evaluation effort at this time. Clarifying this need will help the 

organization determine which evaluation approach is best. 

z Does the organization need to report on the ability of its 

strategies to achieve their stated goals and outcomes to external 

z Does the organization need to improve its ability to integrate 

evaluation into its daily operations and to report its own 

evaluation findings to stakeholders? If so, an empowerment 

evaluation approach may be most appropriate. 

Current attitudes toward evaluation in general 

If stakeholders believe the pros of evaluation are outweighed by the 

cons at this time, then the introduction of any evaluation approach 

into an organization may fail because of stakeholders’ resistance to 

evaluation. In these situations, an organization may want to work 

on increasing stakeholders’ positive views of evaluation through 

training, dialogue, and case studies before taking on any type of 

evaluation. Once stakeholders see more clearly the benefits of 

evaluation, the organization should be more receptive and ready to 

pursue evaluation activities. 

Questions to consider in determining your organization’s attitude 

toward evaluation include: 

z How do stakeholders feel about the costs, time, resources, and 

expertise needed to conduct an evaluation? 

z Do stakeholders view evaluation as an optional activity with 

little relevance to strategy implementation or as a key resource 

to improve their work and the ability of their strategies to 

achieve their stated goals and outcomes? 

z Are stakeholders concerned that an evaluation will not be 

sensitive to various contextual issues associated with a particular 

strategy? 

z Do stakeholders see evaluation as possibly punitive, 

exclusionary, or adversarial? 

z Are stakeholders motivated to participate in an evaluation? 

z In general, is evaluation viewed positively or negatively? 

Current attitudes toward 

empowerment evaluation 

Empowerment evaluation requires a great deal of stakeholder 

time, participation and commitment to ensure the integration of 

evaluation practices into the organization’s day-to-day operations. 

The following questions can help assess if stakeholders are ready 

to provide the time, participation, and commitment necessary for 

empowerment evaluation to succeed in integrating evaluation into 

an organization’s and stakeholders’ daily work. 

z Are stakeholders prepared to actively participate in various 

learning activities (e.g., training and technical assistance) 

to increase their evaluation knowledge, skills, and use? As 24
 

Step 1: Preparing for the Hiring Process 

Schnoes, Murphy-Berman, and Chambers (2000, p. 59) note, 

“the empowerment evaluation approach presumes very active 

participation” and “assumes that clients want and see the need 

for evaluation of some type.” 

z Are stakeholders ready to devote time to increasing their 

evaluation capacity and conducting evaluation activities (e.g., 

collect data) as part of the learning-by-doing process? 

z Are stakeholders prepared for an initial steep learning curve 

regarding evaluation practice? 

z Are stakeholders aware that, as part of the empowerment 

evaluation process, the evaluator gradually disengages from the 

evaluation capacity–building process and any evaluations of 

specific strategies as the stakeholders become more competent 

and committed to integrating evaluation into their daily 


activities (Schnoes, Murphy-Brown & Chambers, 2000)?
 

z Are stakeholders willing to strive to increase their demonstration 

of the ideal roles of the organization, empowerment 

evaluator, and funder (see Tables 2-4 on pages 18–21) as the 

empowerment evaluation process moves forward? 

z What would it mean for the organization and its staff to build 

its own capacity and to own and control an evaluation of its 

strategies? 

z What type of support from the empowerment evaluator would 

be best for the organization: coaching, structured guidance, or 

possibly a combination of the two (Miller & Campbell, 2006)? 

Table 5 provides more information about these types of support. 

Table 5. Empowerment Evaluation: Coaching and Structured Guidance9
 

Coaching Structured Guidance 

Description Evaluators maintain a question-and-answer 

relationship with organizational staff and 

stakeholders. Under this model, the evaluator helps 

the group decide on the goals, design, and procedures 

of an evaluation and how the data will be collected, 

analyzed, and reported. The evaluator helps the 

group solve problems, provides requested trainings, 

acts as a sounding board, and poses questions to 

guide the group in analyzing evaluation findings 

and determining what they mean for strategy 

improvement. 

Evaluators may participate in carrying out evaluation 

activities as a member of the overall group, not as a 

lead evaluator. 

Evaluators design a set of evaluation steps and 

how they will be implemented. This design may be 

done by the evaluator alone or in collaboration with 

organizational staff and stakeholders. Evaluators may 

provide evaluation workbooks and worksheets to use 

in single- or multiple-session trainings for various staff 

members. Organizational staff members build their 

evaluation capacity through completing the workbooks 

and worksheets. 

Evaluators provide additional training and technical 

assistance. They sometimes take the lead on analyzing 

and reporting any data collected. 

Situation 

most often 

used 

Smaller-scale projects Larger, multi-site projects that make 

individual coaching difficult 

Adherence to 

empowerment 

evaluation 

principles 

Closer adherence to the empowerment evaluation 

principles. Strongest principles: community 

knowledge, community ownership, and organizational 

learning. Weakest principles: evidence-based 

strategies, democracy, social justice, and improvement. 

Less adherence to all the empowerment evaluation 

principles. Strongest principles: accountability, 

community knowledge, and organizational learning. 

Weakest principles: democracy, social justice, 

community ownership, and evidence-based strategies. 

9

 Based on Miller & Campbell, 2006. 

25
stakeholder questions and concerns about the approach. In 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Management support for 


empowerment evaluation 

Management support and leadership are crucial if the 

empowerment evaluation approach is to be successful at building 

both organizational and individual evaluation capacity. The 

following questions will help your organization determine if 

management is ready to support and lead the empowerment 

evaluation process within your organization: 

z Is management ready to develop or provide structures, 

processes, and resources needed for empowerment evaluation to 

be successful? If so, how? 

z Is management ready to ensure that staff ’s current 

responsibilities are restructured to allow time for evaluation 

activities and to communicate that evaluation is not an add-on 

or optional activity, but one that is integral to the organization’s 

operations? 

z Is the organization ready to take a long-term perspective of 5 or 

more years to build evaluation capacity within the organization 

(Preskill & Torres, 1999)? 

z Does the organization’s culture emphasize organizational 

learning? Is there an organizational norm of trust and courage 

that supports learning through risk taking (Preskill & Torres, 

1999)? Are mistakes viewed as opportunities for learning? 

z Is organizational learning supported through democratic 

processes such as dialogue; reflection; asking questions; and 

clarifying values, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge through 

dialogue and reflection (Preskill & Torres, 1999)? 

z Is the organization’s leadership willing to integrate evaluation 

into their daily activities (Preskill & Torres, 1999)? How do they 

plan to model this? 

z Is the organization ready to integrate evaluation into its ongoing 

operating practices rather than conducting discrete evaluations 

of specific strategies (Preskill & Torress, 1999)? 

z Is management aware of the organizational and community 

resources available for use in an empowerment evaluation 

approach? See Worksheet 1: Resources for Empowerment 

Evaluation in Appendix B on page 76 for additional 

guidance in this area. 

The purpose of these discussions is to identify concerns about 

evaluation in general, weigh the pros and cons of using the 

empowerment evaluation approach, and anticipate and address 

some ways, these discussions will be your organization’s first 

opportunity to foster community ownership of your evaluation 

process, regardless of the approach you choose. At the end of 

these discussions, your organization will hopefully have a clear 

understanding of what empowerment evaluation is, what 

would be required to build your evaluation capacity using this 

approach, what barriers and facilitators you face, what methods 

and approaches could be used to minimize barriers and maximize 

facilitators, and, ultimately, whether or not empowerment 

evaluation is right for your organization at this time. 

At a minimum, these discussions should involve members of the 

board of directors, management, funders, and staff members 

who would be affected by the use of an empowerment evaluation 

approach. Consider having community stakeholders participate as 

appropriate. As part of these discussions, you may want to invite a 

speaker who is knowledgeable about empowerment evaluation to 

do a presentation followed by a question-and-answer session. 

Ultimately, the board of directors and/or management must decide 

what type of an evaluation approach will be used within your 

organization and whether empowerment evaluation will meet that 

purpose. 

Stakeholders may find it helpful to review the following articles 

and chapters when assessing if empowerment evaluation is the 

right approach for your organization at this time: 

Campbell, R., Dorey, H., Naegeli, M., Grubstein, L. K., Bennett, K. 

K., Bonter, F., et al. (2004). An empowerment evaluation model 

for sexual assault programs: Empirical evidence of effectiveness. 

American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 251–262. 

Livet, M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Organizational functioning: 

Facilitating effective interventions and increasing the odds of 

programming success. In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), 

Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice (pp. 123–154). New 

York: Guilford Press. 

Schnoes, C. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Chambers, J. M. (2000). 

Empowerment evaluation applied: Experiences, analysis, 

and recommendations from a case study. American Journal of 

Evaluation, 21(1), 53–64. 

26
Step 1: Preparing for the Hiring Process 

Develop a Hiring Plan and Track Your Progress 

Once you’ve decided that your organization will participate in completion of several tasks. Both the steps and their associated 

an empowerment evaluation process, you’ll need to develop tasks, outlined in Table 6, can be used to guide the development 

a plan for hiring an evaluator. The remaining sections of this of a hiring plan; they may also be adapted to better fit your 

manual are organized around seven steps associated with hiring organization’s needs. 

an empowerment evaluator—each of which may require the 

Table 6. Steps and Tasks in Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator 

Step Tasks
 

1. Preparing for the hiring process z Form a hiring committee 

2. Writing a job announcement z Write a job announcement 

3. Finding potential empowerment evaluators z Post job announcement 

z Identify and contact potential candidates 

4. Assessing the candidates z Review resumes and select candidates for interviews 

z Interview top candidates 

z Request and review work samples from top candidates 

z Conduct a meet and greet of top candidates 

z Check references of top candidates 

z Select candidate and make a job offer 

5. Writing an evaluation contract z Develop and sign an evaluation contract with 

selected empowerment evaluator 

6. Building an effective relationship with your evaluator z Establish an empowerment evaluation team 

z Exchange information 

z Establish a communication schedule 

z Review contract regarding performance issues 

7. Assessing and sustaining the evaluation z Make sure you are really doing empowerment evaluation 

z Continue the evaluation process after the evaluation contract ends 

Form a hiring committee 

To foster the principles of empowerment evaluation—particularly 

community ownership, inclusiveness, and accountability—form a 

hiring committee (also known as a search committee) that includes 

members of your organization who have a role and investment in 

building your organization’s evaluation capacity and perhaps in the 

evaluation of a particular strategy. Worksheet 2: Hiring Committee 

Checklist in Appendix B on page 78 can help you with this task. 

The hiring committee should include someone in leadership within 

your organization, such as your executive director or program 

managers, along with the person(s) who will directly supervise the 

evaluator’s work. You should also include the person who is most 

directly responsible for any initial strategies to be evaluated. You 

might want to include a front-line staff person who is involved in 

the direct implementation of the strategy. If your empowerment 

evaluator will be interacting with members of other organizations 

27
28

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
 

 

Step 1: Preparing for the Hiring Process 

as part of a partnership, it is a good idea to include a representative 

from those organizations on your hiring committee. 

You may also want to include someone with knowledge of 

various types of evaluation (i.e., independent, participatory and 

empowerment) and experience in conducting evaluations. If you 

do not have someone on your staff with such experience, you could 

invite an evaluator who is familiar with various types of evaluation 

and who does not wish to apply for the position to be on your 

hiring committee. Having such a member can be a tremendous 

asset when you are assessing applicants’ qualifications. 

Although it is good to be inclusive, your hiring committee needs 

to be a manageable size, about five to seven people. You can 

include others in the hiring process without adding them to the 

hiring committee. For example, once you have narrowed your 

search to two or three candidates, you could invite staff and other 

stakeholders to an informal “meet and greet” reception for each 

candidate. Those who attended the reception can e-mail their 

comments about each candidate to the hiring committee for 

consideration in the final selection process. 

After your hiring committee is formed, each member should sign a 

confidentiality statement to protect the privacy of your applicants. A 

sample confidentiality statement has been provided in Appendix C 

on page 89. 

You’ll also want to recap for the committee what empowerment 

evaluation is, why it is important to this organization, what 

resources the organization will be able to devote to the 

empowerment evaluation process (see Worksheet 1 in Appendix 

B), and the key themes identified in the organization’s earlier 

discussions regarding the use of empowerment evaluation. 

Reviewing this information will ensure that everyone on the hiring 

committee understands why the organization is looking for an 

empowerment evaluator and what evaluator qualities will work 

well with your organization. 

Note from the Field

“Each member of the hiring 

committee represented a 

programmatic and/or geographic 

area within the state that the 

evaluator would be responsible 

for coaching. For example, one 

member of the hiring committee 

represented a rural program and 

another member was the director 

of a domestic violence/rape crisis 

program in a mid-sized community. 

It was important that each of them 

participate in the hiring process 

to ensure that we would hire an 

evaluator that would be able to work 

effectively in both communities.” 

Track your progress 

To ensure your hiring process moves along smoothly, develop a 

plan and method for tracking your progress. Worksheet 3: Tracking 

Progress for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator in Appendix B on 

page 79 can help. This manual does not suggest a timeframe for 

each step because many variables and factors can affect the time it 

takes to work through the hiring process. Be realistic about target 

dates, and be sure to build in extra time around holidays and your 

organization’s busy times. As the hiring process progresses, the 

hiring committee may adjust target dates because of unforeseen 

circumstances or tasks that took longer than expected. The 

important thing is to complete each task in a thoughtful and 

deliberate manner. 29
30

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
Step 2: Writing a Job Announcement 

Step 2: Writing a Job Announcement
 

A job announcement for an empowerment evaluator is the 

primary way to communicate the qualifications you desire 

and the deliverables you expect. It may be similar to other job 

announcements your organization has created. 

The job announcement should be specific and clear so potential 

applicants can determine if they are qualified for the position and 

if the position is of interest to them. A good job announcement will 

increase the likelihood that you will find appropriate applicants 

and will reduce the time you spend reviewing applications from 

inappropriate candidates. It should be brief (not more than 1–2 

pages) and easy to read. Use bold and italics to highlight words that 

you want to stand out. 

Note from the Field

“At the beginning of the hiring 

process, the most important lesson 

that we learned was to be flexible 

with the process and identify 

priorities (experience with domestic/

sexual violence and evaluation). 

Therefore, what is put into the 

job announcement has to be well 

thought out and agreed upon by the 

hiring committee, with clearly stated 

non-negotiables.” 

Common components of a job announcement include 

the following: 

z Name and description of hiring organization 

z Title of position 

z Type of position (e.g., part-time, contractual) 

z Length of project or contract 

z Summary of position 

z Job responsibilities and deliverables 

z Minimum and preferred qualifications 

z Available compensation 

z Application instructions and deadline 

A sample job announcement is included in Appendix D on page 90. 

Some organizations may announce their position through a request 

for proposal (RFP). An RFP includes many of the same elements as 

a job announcement; the main difference is that an RFP requires 

that the applicant submit a proposal with a detailed plan of work. A 

sample RFP is available in Appendix E on page 91. 

Define the Type of Position 

Your organization’s empowerment evaluation needs can be filled by 

offering a staff position or a contract position. A contract position 

is the most popular choice because it is flexible and usually costs 

less than hiring a staff member. Hiring an evaluator as a full-time 

or part-time employee, although typically more costly, has the 

potential to significantly increase an organization’s evaluation 

capacity. 

If you offer a contract position, your job announcement should 

include an estimate of the time the position will require, such 

as the number of hours or days per week or per month. It can be 

difficult to estimate the amount of time required for the position, 

especially if this is the first time you have worked with a contract 

evaluator. For this reason, you may want to add a clause in the job 

description that the estimated time involved is subject to change. 

If you are uncertain about whether to offer a staff position or 

a contract position, you can wait until you have reviewed your 

applicant pool to decide which arrangement is most feasible. 

Define Responsibilities and 

Deliverables 

The responsibilities of the position define what you expect 

your empowerment evaluator to do. Deliverables are what you 

expect your empowerment evaluator to do and produce, such 

as developing a training manual and then providing a training 

with follow-up technical assistance as stakeholders apply 

the training materials to the evaluation of a specific strategy. 

31
expect that your evaluator will contribute to the production of 

certain deliverables (e.g., evaluation reports), but may be solely 

responsible for others (e.g., providing written recommendations 

on how to institutionalize evaluation within the organization or a 

group training on process evaluation that includes a PowerPoint 

presentation and manual). 

The job responsibilities and deliverables should be based 

on the needs of your organization, which you defined while 

deciding whether empowerment evaluation is right for your 

organization, and on any evaluation requirements of specific 

strategies as defined by your funder(s). Table 7 provides a list 

of common job responsibilities of an empowerment evaluator. 

These responsibilities may or may not be appropriate for your 

organization. The list is provided to help you think about what 

your organization needs from your empowerment evaluator. You 

can record your needs on Worksheet 4: Defining Job Responsibilities 

and Deliverables, found in Appendix B on page 80. 

Because empowerment evaluation is collaborative, you may 

Notes from the Field

“We initially decided to have the 

empowerment evaluator as a staff 

position, so we didn’t interview folks 

that applied as a contract position. 

Then we decided to contract the 

position. If we could do it all over 

again, we would make our decision 

regarding whether this would be a 

contract or staff position after we 

interviewed all qualified candidates.” 

“Our evaluator is employed by our 

organization. We made the decision 

to make this a staff position after 

our State Department of Health 

agreed to allow us to apply some 

of our annual award to the salary 

and benefits of this position as 

well. This allowed us to maintain 

our commitment to equity in our 

work on behalf of both sexual and 

domestic violence...and to build our 

capacity to sustain this work in the 

future.” 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

32
Step 2: Writing a Job Announcement 

Table 7. Common Job Responsibilities and Deliverables of an 

Empowerment Evaluator 

Adhere to the principles of empowerment evaluation 

Empowerment evaluators should know the 10 empowerment evaluation principles and constantly assess whether or not they are living up 

to these principles in their work with a particular organization. For instance, it is quite common for an empowerment evaluator to question 

if he or she is owning/controlling the evaluation capacity-building process and the evaluation of any specific strategies in a manner that 

weakens the principles of community ownership and capacity building. It is also quite common for members of the organization to develop 

their ownership of the evaluation process over time; that is, substantial community ownership by the organization and its staff may not 

happen until they gain a better understanding of evaluation concepts, practices, and processes (Keener , Snell-Johns, Livet, & Wandersman, 

2005). 

Assess the evaluation needs and resources of staff and the organization 

Empowerment evaluators should meet with organizational staff and other stakeholders to learn about the organization’s history, 

management structure, core values and hierarchy, funding resources, strategies, clients and constituents, community partnerships, 

and past and current evaluation activities (Campbell et al., 2004). Empowerment evaluators can then provide a written report that 

describes the organization’s needs and resources and provides recommendations on how to increase the evaluation capacity of the 

organization and its staff. 

Conduct or facilitate training and technical assistance to develop individual and 

organizational evaluation capacity 

Empowerment evaluators are responsible for using adult learning principles, collaboration, and facilitation/coaching techniques to increase 

individual and organizational evaluation capacity. Preskill and Torres (1999) emphasize the use of four learning processes when building 

evaluation capacity: dialogue; reflection; asking questions; and identifying/clarifying values, beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge. It is 

unacceptable for an empowerment evaluator to simply provide PowerPoint presentations that do not encourage questions, dialogue, and 

real application to the organization’s current issues. 

Empowerment evaluators provide training and technical assistance on such topics as how to: 

z Engage stakeholders 

z Describe the strategy 

z Choose an evaluation design 

z Gather credible information 

z Write reports that justify conclusions 

z Work to ensure that evaluation results are used to improve organizational evaluation capacity and the 

particular strategy evaluated (CDC, 1999). 

Training and technical assistance should include skills-based activities, not just lecture. Empowerment evaluators can review reports 

required by funders from an evaluation perspective so as to better report evaluation findings to funders. Empowerment evaluators can 

assess the feasibility and outcomes of logic models developed by an organization and help an organization understand the utility of 

required reports beyond just satisfying a funder’s reporting requirements. 

Under a structured guidance empowerment evaluation, the evaluator may develop a training curriculum. Any training materials created 

should be easy to read, be adaptable for multiple purposes, be usable by participants who are unable to attend a training, and provide reallife examples of violence prevention strategies (Campbell et al., 2004). Manuals and guides may be used to support the training curriculum. 

Topics may include data analysis/use as well as resources for evaluation, such as data analysis software. 

Continued 

33
Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Table 7. Common Job Responsibilities and Deliverables of an 

Empowerment Evaluator (Continued) 

Promote critical thinking and consensus building 

Empowerment evaluators also have a key role in promoting critical thinking and building consensus among stakeholders about what 

is learned from the evaluation and how findings are applied to strategy and organizational improvement. As various stakeholders may 

have different priorities, evaluators are charged with using the 10 empowerment evaluation principles as a framework through which to 

facilitate group discussions and reach decisions. 

Facilitate and assist in the development of an evaluation plan for specific strategies that takes 

into consideration each strategy’s stage of development and the organization’s capacity 

Empowerment evaluators do not write the evaluation plan for stakeholders to review. Rather, through training, technical assistance, and 

facilitation, they enable stakeholders to develop their own plans. 

Provide coaching and assistance in collecting, storing, and analyzing data 

Empowerment evaluators initially provide hands-on coaching and assistance in collecting, storing, and analyzing data, which tapers off 

over time as the organization gains capacity in these areas. 

Assist in the completion of specific reporting requirements 

Empowerment evaluators coach the organization and its staff on how to include evaluation findings in specific reporting requirements. This 

coaching may be more hands-on early in the process and taper off as both individual and organizational evaluation capacity increase. 

Travel to periodic trainings and meetings sponsored by funders 

Empowerment evaluators may be required to attend trainings and meetings sponsored by the organization’s funders. Empowerment 

evaluators understand that they do not have the authority to speak for the organization when attending such meetings unless the 

organization gives them such authority. In these situations, the evaluator is careful to present himself or herself not as the evaluation expert 

regarding the organization’s strategies, but as a coach working to increase the organization’s evaluation capacity. 

Define Required and Preferred Qualifications for the Position
 

Your hiring committee should develop a list of qualifications 

that are necessary and realistic to expect of your empowerment 

evaluator. The list should be informed by the needs of your 

organization, as identified in the discussions that led to your 

decision to hire an empowerment evaluator. At times, the hiring 

committee may have to use its own judgment to determine what 

these qualifications are. Every effort should be made to ensure 

that the qualifications align with the needs and perspectives of the 

organization. 

The size of your expected applicant pool is an important factor 

when deciding which qualifications to require vs. those that are 

preferred. If your organization is located in a large metropolitan 

area, for example, you may be able to set relatively high 

qualification standards to avoid receiving too many applications. 

However, if your organization is located in a small, rural area where 

there may be fewer evaluators to choose from, you may want to 

set both minimum and preferred qualifications. That way, you can 

remain open to a wider range of potential candidates while also 

defining your ideal candidate. 

The combination of qualifications is important. None of the 

qualifications described in this section are meant to stand alone. 

For example, someone may meet the suggested educational 

qualifications but not have the evaluation experience, evaluation 

capacity–building experience, or the facilitation skills you are 

looking for. 

Table 8 suggests qualifications for an empowerment evaluator. 

After reviewing these qualifications, your hiring committee 

can use Worksheet 5: Defining Qualifications of the Position (in 

Appendix B on page 81) to describe those that are most important 

34
Step 2: Writing a Job Announcement 

to your organization. Your hiring committee will also need to reviewing a resume or conducting an interview with the candidate. 

determine how it will assess these qualifications. For instance, a Your hiring committee may need to get references that can report 

potential candidate’s facilitation skills will not be easily assessed by their observations of a potential candidate’s facilitation skills. 

Table 8. Suggested Qualifications for an Empowerment Evaluator
 

Not qualified/ 

Not a match 

Qualified 

(Required) 

Qualified 

(Preferred) 

Education/training No graduate degree Master’s degree in public health, 

psychology, education, or other 

related field 

Coursework in evaluation 

and/or research methods and 

statistics 

Doctoral degree (PhD) in public 

health, psychology, education, 

or other related field 

Coursework in additional 

relevant subject matter 

(specified by your organization) 

Previous professional No practical experience doing At least 2 years of professional At least 4 years of professional 

experience participatory or communitybased evaluation (even if highly 

experienced as a researcher) 

experience doing participatory 

or community-based 

evaluation with an emphasis on 

organizational capacity building 

experience doing participatory 

or community-based 

evaluation with an emphasis on 

organizational capacity building 

Has done empowerment 

evaluation with communitybased organizations 

Orientation to evaluation Believes that evaluation is only 

valid when conducted by a 

professional evaluator 

Is unwilling to use an 

empowerment evaluation 

approach 

Views evaluation as a tool for 

strategy development and 

improvement; believes that 

evaluation can be done by 

organizational stakeholders 

when equipped with the skills 

and tools to do evaluation 

Is enthusiastic about using 

an empowerment evaluation 

approach 

Views evaluation as a tool for 

strategy development and 

improvement; believes that 

evaluation can be done by 

organizational stakeholders 

when equipped with the skills 

and tools to do evaluation 

Experience in participatory 

or empowerment evaluation 

approaches 

Facilitation skills Is unable to facilitate a group 

decision-making process 

in accordance with the 10 

empowerment evaluation 

principles 

Is developing the ability to 

facilitate a group decisionmaking process in accordance 

with the 10 empowerment 

evaluation principles 

Is able to facilitate a group 

decision-making process 

in accordance with the 10 

empowerment evaluation 

principles 

Communication skills Poor verbal and written 

communication skills 

Strong verbal and written 

communication skills 

Excellent verbal and written 

communication skills 

35
Education and training 

Professional evaluators, including empowerment evaluators, come 

technical assistance, and coaching, especially in the interpretation 

of evaluation results. Evaluators with a background in school 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

from a range of academic fields and educational backgrounds. 

Qualified evaluators typically hold graduate degrees in public 

health, psychology, education, or social work. Whatever an 

evaluator’s field, look for completed coursework in research or 

evaluation methods and statistics. 

Individuals with doctoral degrees in one of the areas listed above 

have typically completed an intensive research requirement 

that can be good preparation for doing professional evaluation. 

Although a PhD is certainly desirable, individuals with master’s 

degrees often have the education and skills needed to do 

evaluation. 

There is no formal training program for empowerment evaluation, 

nor are there special courses taken only by empowerment 

evaluators. Therefore, although educational background will help 

you determine who has the basic knowledge to do evaluation 

of any type, it will not tell you who might be good at coaching 

an organization in building its evaluation capacity and through 

the initial evaluation of the organization’s strategies. Other 

qualifications will be more important in making that distinction. 

In addition to formal education, some evaluators pursue training 

opportunities through workshops and institutes, such as the annual 

meeting of the American Evaluation Association and the annual 

Summer Evaluation Institute sponsored by the American Evaluation 

Association and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Some institutes occasionally offer workshops specifically on 

empowerment evaluation. Although you may not want to limit 

your search to candidates who have participated in such training 

opportunities, these experiences suggest that a candidate is 

making a concerted effort to grow in his or her abilities as an 

evaluator overall and perhaps as an empowerment evaluator in 

particular. 

Depending on the expected size of your applicant pool, you 

may also want to consider specific educational background or 

coursework that informs your organization’s prevention efforts. For 

example, evaluators with public health education and experience 

are likely to be familiar with primary prevention concepts, 

evaluation, and working with community-based organizations to 

achieve positive health outcomes. Evaluators with education and 

experience in women’s studies may be particularly well suited to 

organizations that want to ensure that the empowerment evaluator 

has a sufficient understanding of the principle of social justice and 

that this understanding informs how he or she provides training, 

psychology or developmental psychology may be desirable to 

organizations focused on youth development. 

Professional experience 

Professional experience in four key areas is highly desirable for an 

empowerment evaluator: 

1. Experience working from a participatory evaluation 

perspective. One might assume that a viable candidate for 

empowerment evaluator must have previous experience doing 

empowerment evaluation. Although this would be ideal, it might 

not be a realistic expectation in all cases. Empowerment evaluation 

is still a relatively new approach to evaluation, and while more 

opportunities to use the approach are emerging all the time, many 

professional evaluators who appreciate the values of empowerment 

evaluation may not have had the opportunity to apply the 

approach. Evaluators who have worked from other participatory 

evaluation approaches may be very qualified candidates to do 

empowerment evaluation, if they are willing to adjust their 

approach to focus more on individual and organizational capacity 

building. Therefore, your organization may place more emphasis 

on whether or not a potential candidate’s overall approach to 

evaluation is conducive to empowerment evaluation than on 

previous experience doing empowerment evaluation specifically. 

If you have a large applicant pool, you may still have the option of 

choosing someone with a specific background in empowerment 

evaluation. 

2. Experience working with diverse stakeholders who 

are not trained evaluators. Your empowerment evaluator 

will be responsible for building evaluation capacity among your 

stakeholders and within your organization. Having experience in 

working with diverse stakeholders who are not trained evaluators 

may help an empowerment evaluator build a collaborative 

atmosphere more quickly and increase staff ownership of the 

evaluation capacity–building process. 

3. Experience conducting or facilitating evaluations driven 

by organizational needs. Candidates for the empowerment 

evaluator position should have experience in helping organizations 

do evaluation that is driven by organizational needs, rather than by 

the evaluator’s own interests. Ideally, your empowerment evaluator 

will have experience with an organization whose culture, resources, 

and perspective on collaboration with other community partners 

is similar to yours. This experience will provide a basis for the 

evaluator to understand what activities to pursue, and how quickly 

to pursue them, in building your organization’s evaluation capacity. 

36
 

Step 2: Writing a Job Announcement 

An evaluator who has conducted evaluation activities based only on 

his or her interests is not a good candidate for your organization’s 

empowerment evaluator. 

How much evaluation experience is enough? There is no simple 

answer to this question, but more experience is usually better 

than less. In most cases, at least 2 years of evaluation experience 

is adequate, and 4 or more years of experience is preferable. 

Evaluation experience consists of work experiences in which the 

applicant worked independently, or as part of a team, either 

conducting an evaluation or building organizational evaluation 

capacity. Look for previous job titles such as “program evaluator,” 

“evaluation specialist,”“director of evaluation,” and “evaluation 

consultant.” 

4. Experience in organizational and individual evaluation 

capacity building. Because of empowerment evaluation’s 

emphasis on capacity building, candidates for the empowerment 

evaluator position should ideally have experience in building 

both individual and organizational evaluation capacity. Individual 

evaluation capacity–building experience may have come from 

teaching evaluation courses within a university or other setting. 

Organizational evaluation capacity–building experience may have 

come from prior work with organizations that wanted to integrate 

evaluation into their day-to-day management processes. The main 

point is to specifically assess how each candidate has worked to 

build evaluation capacity within individuals and organizations and/ 

or what their perspective is on how they would do this within your 

organization. 

You may also want to highlight some other types of specialized 

experience in your job announcement. For example, if your 

organization is working as part of a community partnership or 

using a community mobilization approach, you may want an 

empowerment evaluator who has worked with and evaluated the 

efforts of community coalitions. 

Again, the size of your expected applicant pool will determine 

whether you list these types of experiences as required or preferred 

qualifications. 

Orientation to evaluation 

The most important factor for distinguishing potential 

empowerment evaluators from other types of evaluators is their 

orientation to evaluation. At a minimum, you should require that 

applicants be willing to work with your organization to build 

its evaluation capacity in a manner that is consistent with the 

principles of empowerment evaluation, regardless of their previous 

experience in doing so. It might be helpful to list the principles of 

empowerment evaluation in your job announcement. 

Specifically, candidates for an empowerment evaluator position 

should view evaluation as an organizational tool for strategy 

development and improvement. They should also believe that 

organizational stakeholders can conduct evaluation accurately 

when they are equipped with the skills and tools they need. In 

addition, they should believe that evaluation can be useful and 

relevant to stakeholders, especially when stakeholders own and 

participate in the evaluation process. 

Independent evaluators who are more comfortable doing an 

evaluation than building individual and organizational evaluation 

capacity in a learn-by-doing process would probably not be good 

empowerment evaluators. 

Facilitation skills 

Empowerment evaluators are charged with building organizational 

and individual evaluation capacity in a manner consistent with the 

10 principles of empowerment evaluation. To balance principles 

such as social justice, community knowledge, evidence-based 

strategies, and accountability among a group of stakeholders 

working to improve a strategy, an empowerment evaluator must 

have strong facilitation skills. Experience in building consensus and 

reaching compromise is vital to this position. 

Communication and interpersonal skills 

Effective communication skills are essential for an empowerment 

evaluator. An individual in this position should be able to write and 

speak clearly, using terms that are easy to understand. In addition, 

he or she should be capable and comfortable in speaking to both 

small and large groups. The ideal candidate should have experience 

providing training and technical assistance in a variety of settings, 

should understand the needs of adult learners, and enjoy being 

in a coaching role. Your evaluator should have experience forming 

strong working relationships with a diverse array of organizational 

stakeholders. Ultimately, you want someone with whom you and 

your staff feel comfortable—someone who is supportive and 

non-threatening and can interact with you about evaluation using 

everyday language. 

Other conditions of employment 

Your job announcement should also specify any other conditions 

of employment that are important to your organization. For 

instance, is it necessary that the evaluator live in the same state 

or community where your organization is located? Do you need an 

evaluator who is bilingual or has special language skills? Will travel 

be required, and how often? 

37
38

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
 

Step 3: Finding Potential Empowerment Evaluators 

Step 3: Finding Potential 


Empowerment Evaluators
 

Know Where to Look for Candidates
 

Empowerment evaluators, like most other evaluators, typically 

work in a university or other academic setting, in a research or 

evaluation consulting firm, or as independent consultants (i.e., 

they are self-employed and/or have their own small business). In 

addition, many evaluators have full-time positions in nonprofit 

organizations and government agencies; unless they are willing to 

change jobs, however, these individuals are usually not available 

for other projects. Keep in mind that the setting within which 

an evaluator works says nothing about his or her inclination or 

skills to practice empowerment evaluation. That is something you 

will assess based on the resumes you receive and interviews you 

conduct with your candidates. 

This section presents some of the advantages and disadvantages 

of working with evaluators from different professional settings, as 

well as issues associated with working with an evaluation team. 

University-based evaluators 

University-based evaluators are employed as faculty or may work 

for a faculty member at colleges or universities. 

Advantages of using university-based evaluators: 

z Can bring a high level of prestige, scholarship, and expertise to 

an empowerment evaluation project. 

z Can have extensive experience in teaching evaluation due to 

teaching and dissertation or thesis responsibilities 

Disadvantages of using university-based evaluators: 

z These evaluators generally have multiple demands on their time, 

such as teaching, conducting research, writing publications, and 

possibly consulting with other clients, which may limit their 

focus on your organization’s empowerment evaluation activities. 

z When hiring a university-based evaluator, the university typically 

applies indirect fees, ranging from 25%–50%, in addition to 

the cost charged by the faculty consultant. The indirect fees 

are intended to support university overhead expenses (e.g., 

utilities, building maintenance). More information about how 

to negotiate indirect costs during the contracting phase will be 

discussed in Step 5: Writing an Evaluation Contract, which starts 

on page 55. 

University-based evaluators frequently involve graduate students in 

their projects. This may reduce the cost of hiring a university-based 

evaluator, and it may allow professors to accept projects that they 

may not otherwise have the time to do all by themselves. However, 

be mindful of the fact that graduate students are still learning 

about evaluation generally, empowerment evaluation specifically, 

and possibly the subject matter your organization addresses. 

This learning curve can delay the empowerment evaluation 

process. Also, a professor and his or her graduate students form an 

evaluation team, which can present special challenges; these are 

discussed separately in a following section. 

Research/evaluation consulting firms 

Research/evaluation consulting firms are usually private, for-profit 

companies that employ professionals with particular types of 

expertise in research and evaluation. Consulting firms can range in 

size from just a few employees to hundreds of employees spread 

across the country. Some firms may specialize in working with 

certain types of clients (such as nonprofits or government agencies) 

or within particular content areas. 

Advantages of working with a research/evaluation consulting firm: 

z Their sole focus is on serving clients. 

z They generally have a sizeable infrastructure of resources 

and skills from which to draw to support your organization. 

Rather than depending on one person to carry out all phases 

of a project, they might have one person who focuses on 

measurement, another who focuses on analysis, and another 

who focuses on capacity building. 

Disadvantages of working with a research/evaluation 

consulting firm: 

z These firms also have multiple demands on their time due to 

having multiple clients, which may limit their ability to focus on 

your organization’s empowerment evaluation activities at certain 

times. 

z Often multiple personal will be assigned to a specific project, 

each with varying degrees of experience with evaluation in 

general and empowerment evaluation in particular. 

z Key personnel on the project may leave the organization or get 

moved to another project. 39
z Management of an evaluation team assigned to your 

organization may require much more time and resources than 

When hiring an empowerment evaluation team, set clear 

expectations and agreements about who will be doing the majority 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

working with just one staff member. The issues associated with 

working with an evaluation team are discussed below. 

z Consulting firms charge substantial overhead or indirect 

costs, which are often in the same range as those charged by 

universities: 25-50% of the direct costs. 

Independent evaluation consultants 

Independent evaluators are generally professionals who are selfemployed and consult with a number of different clients. 

Advantage of working with an independent evaluation consultant:: 

z They have complete control over the work demands they choose 

to accept, as opposed to being assigned projects by a supervisor 

at a firm or needing to balance teaching responsibilities at a 

university. 

Disadvantages of working with an independent 

evaluation consultant: 

z The evaluator will likely need to balance the needs of several 

clients simultaneously. 

z Your organization is highly dependent upon the expertise 

and availability of one person. If your chosen evaluator lacks 

expertise in a particular area, you may incur additional costs 

or time delays while the evaluator works to get up to speed in 

that area. Also, if your chosen evaluator becomes unavailable for 

some reason (e.g., illness, family emergency, client conflicts), 

there is no one to act as a back up. 

Evaluation teams 

Occasionally, independent consultants team up with other 

independent consultants or a university-based evaluator for larger 

projects. And, as noted above, you may also encounter a team if you 

hire an evaluation firm or a university-based evaluator who enlists 

the assistance of graduate students. If managed well, an evaluation 

team can afford your organization tremendous benefits, as they 

can offer access to more resources and expertise. If managed 

poorly, however, working with such a team can be taxing and leave 

members of your organization with a negative attitude toward 

evaluation. 

To manage evaluation teams properly, you must establish clear 

roles and expectations for all team members, including those 

from your organization. This will help reduce duplication of efforts 

and minimize delays when staff turnover occurs because everyone 

will know which responsibilities now need to be transferred to 

someone else. 

of the day-to-day project management. If it is a graduate student 

or a junior evaluator at a consulting firm, make sure this person 

has the desired education, evaluation experience, orientation to 

evaluation, project management experience, facilitation skills, and 

communication skills. Additionally, find out how the universitybased professional, research/consulting firm, or independent 

evaluator has managed evaluation teams previously, what they 

learned from those experiences, how they handle client concerns, 

and what quality-assurance processes they implement to ensure 

your organization gets what it needs. 

Advertise Your Position 

To reach a wide audience of qualified empowerment evaluators, it 

is not enough to simply post your job announcement or request for 

proposals (RFP) in the local newspaper. A more proactive approach 

is needed. Here are some steps you can take to advertise your 

position to the most appropriate potential candidates. 

Listservs 

Professional organizations typically use listservs to promote 

discussions about topics relevant to a particular profession and to 

share information about available positions within a profession. 

Some listservs reach a national or even international audience of 

professionals within a particular field. The most well-known listserv 

for evaluators in the United States is administered by the American 

Evaluation Association. In addition, evaluators often subscribe 

to listservs for other fields that are not exclusively focused on 

evaluation, such as public health, psychology, prevention research, 

and education. Table 9 provides a short list of some of the national 

listservs that are likely to reach current or potential empowerment 

evaluators. You may want to search for regional, state, or local 

listservs as well. 

40
 

 

 

Step 3: Finding Potential Empowerment Evaluators 

Table 9. Listservs for Locating Potential Empowerment Evaluators
 

Host Organization Web/Email Address
 

American 

Evaluation 

Association (AEA) 

The American Evaluation Association lists many evaluation-associated listservs on their website at 

www.eval.org/Resources/Listservs.asp. 

Three evaluation listservs that may be most helpful in identifying empowerment evaluators are: 

AEA LIST NAME: EVALTALK 

Topics: All types of evaluation 

Sponsor: Official list of the American Evaluation Association 

Information link: http://bama.ua.edu/archives/evaltalk.html 

For assistance contact: Kathleen Bolland at kbolland@sw.ua.edu 

AEA LIST NAME: Empowerment Evaluation 

Topics: Collaborative, participatory and empowerment (CPE) evaluation 

Sponsor: CPE Topical Interest Group (TIG) of the American Evaluation Association 

Information Link: http://www.eval.org/TIGs/empower.html 

For assistance contact: David Fetterman at davidf@leland.stanford.edu 

LIST NAME: SCRA 

Topics: Community research and action, information on job postings, 

grant opportunities, and SCRA events. 

Sponsor: Society of Community Research and Action 

Information link: http://www.apa.org/divisions/div27/elistserves.html 

For assistance contact: scra-lists@prodigy.net 

Stanford University 

Empowerment Evaluation 

Listserv 

empowerment-evaluation97@lists.stanford.edu. 

To subscribe to the free listserv, send an email to: 

majordomo@lists.stanford.edu with the following message: 

Subscribe empowerment-evaluation97@lists.stanford.edu 

Do not add anything to the message (including thanks) - it is an automated system. 

Society for Prevention Research www.preventionresearch.org/SPR_NPN_Listserv.php 

Prevention Connection — Prevention Connection’s moderated email list (listserv), 

The Violence Against Women Prevent-Connect, is a forum to discuss the newest violence against women prevention efforts. Prevention Partnership 

Information on how to subscribe to the listserv is available at: 

http://www.preventconnect.org/display/displaySection.cfm?sectionID=240 

Usually, only subscribers to a listserv can post a message to it. You 

can usually find instructions on how to join a listserv on the website 

of the organization or association that manages it. If you know 

someone who already subscribes to a listserv, you can ask him or 

her to post your announcement or RFP. When an e-mail is sent to 

the listserv, everyone who subscribes to the listserv will receive it. 

Some listservs have hundreds or thousands of subscribers. 

Because of the volume of e-mail most people receive every 

day, the subject line of an e-mail often determines whether a 

recipient opens it. Therefore, consider carefully what you include 

in the subject line for your job announcement or RFP. Be specific, 

but concise. For example: “Empowerment evaluator position 

announcement in Atlanta, GA.” 

41
Note from the Field

“Initially, our staff was concerned that we would be unable to find a qualified 

candidate in our state....The initial candidates who voiced interest were either 

unqualified or lived out of state, a major concern considering travel costs within 

our state. After posting our contract announcement on the American Evaluation 

Association website, however, we got an immediate inquiry from the woman 

eventually selected as our evaluator.... Our hiring committee was unanimous in our 

assessment of our chosen candidate, and honestly felt that we could not have found a 

better candidate even in a major metropolitan area.”

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Job banks 

In addition to listservs, some associations include job banks on their websites. Instructions on how to post your job announcement 

their websites. Consultants and firms will check these sites when or RFP in the job bank are provided by each website. You may need 

seeking work. Table 10 offers a short list of organizations relevant to register your organization on the website before you can post 

to evaluators and/or violence prevention that include job banks on your announcement or RFP. 

Table 10. Job Banks for Locating Potential Empowerment Evaluators 

Host Organization of Job Bank Web Address 

American Evaluation Association www.eval.org/programs/careercenter.asp 

American Psychological Association http://jobs.psyccareers.com 

Society for Prevention Research www.preventionresearch.org/trainingcareershome.php 

Other places to post your job announcement 

If your organization has its own website, be sure to post your job 

announcement prominently on the home page. In addition to 

the Internet, consider state and local newsletters and periodicals 

that may be relevant to potential empowerment evaluators. 

For example, some states and communities have associations of 

nonprofit organizations that may publish a monthly or quarterly 

newsletter. If your own organization circulates a newsletter, be sure 

to post your announcement there. 

42
Step 3: Finding Potential Empowerment Evaluators 

Invite Potential Candidates to Apply
 

Promising candidates for your empowerment evaluation position 

may not be actively seeking work when you post your job 

announcement or RFP, or they may not see the announcement. 

Therefore, it is wise to proactively seek out and contact potential 

candidates and let them know about your position. 

Resumé banks 

Some organizations’ websites maintain resume banks and lists 

of evaluators. The American Evaluation Association maintains a 

list of evaluators by geographic region (www.eval.org/find_an_ 

evaluator/evaluator_search.asp). The association also links to 

numerous regional, state, and metro-area affiliate organizations 

(found at www.eval.org/aboutus/organization/affiliates.asp). 

Many of these organizations have their own job banks and resume 

banks. 

Universities 

Departments of public health, sociology, social work, education, 

and psychology, as well as university-based research centers, often 

have faculty who are trained and have experience in evaluation. 

Start with a list of colleges and universities near you. Identify the 

relevant academic departments at each school by searching their 

website. Call the chair of each of those departments and ask for 

the names of faculty who have experience in evaluation, especially 

those who teach evaluation. 

Partners and other organizations 

Call your partners and contacts at nonprofit organizations, 

coalitions, government agencies, and universities located in your 

state or local community to ask for the names of good evaluators 

with whom they have worked. 

Funders 

Funders are increasingly requiring their grantees to evaluate the 

program or strategy for which they are provided funding. They may 

be able to recommend evaluators. 

Making contact 

Once you have a list of potential candidates, call or e-mail them. 

Given the high volume of e-mails most people receive, phone calls 

are more likely to reach potential candidates who are not already 

familiar with you or your organization. 

When contacting potential candidates: 

1. Introduce yourself and your organization. 

2. Let them know you are looking for an evaluation consultant 

who can assist your organization in building its evaluation capacity 

using an empowerment evaluation approach. 

3. Ask if you can send them your job announcement. 

4. Let them know how to contact you. 

5. If given the opportunity, describe the nature of the available 

position and the length of the project. 

6. If they are interested in the position, you may want to have 

them submit one or all of the following: 

z Letter of interest that summarizes their experience, their 

interest in the position, and their contractual rate (how much 

they charge for their work) and whether the rate is firm or 

negotiable. 

z Resume or curriculum vitae. 

z Proposal describing their approach to completing the tasks in 

the job announcement. 

z Sample evaluation summaries of past evaluations they have 

conducted. 

z Letters of reference from other organizations for which they 

have conducted or been involved with evaluation. 

7. Let them know that if they are not interested or available, 

you would welcome referrals to other professionals who may be 

qualified and interested. 

43
44

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
Step 4: Assessing the Candidates 

Step 4: Assessing the Candidates
 

After your deadline for applications has passed, take a look at your 

pool of applicants. Review letters of interest, resumes, curriculum 

vitae, and/or proposals you received to assess which of the 

candidates have met the established qualifications and choose the 

most desirable candidates to interview. 

Review Resumes and Applications 


Develop a process for reviewing submitted materials with your 

hiring committee. Depending on the number of people or 

organizations that have expressed interest in the position, you may 

choose to divide the submitted materials among all the members 

of your hiring committee or have each member of the committee 

review each applicant’s materials. You could choose a block of 

time to meet as a group and go through all submitted materials 

together. Follow your organization’s required procedure to evaluate 

each submittal based on the qualifications you specified in your job 

announcement or RFP. Worksheet 6: Resume Review on page 82 

in Appendix B can help with this process. You may need to adapt 

the worksheet to fit the specific qualifications for your position. 

When an evaluation team responds to your job announcement or 

RFP, consider completing a separate resume review worksheet for 

each member of the team to ensure that your organization’s basic 

requirements for the position are covered by at least one team 

member or the team as a whole. 

Develop an Interview Plan and 

Conduct Interviews 

After the hiring committee has determined which applicants 

appear to meet your desired qualifications on paper, it’s time to 

interview those candidates. During the interview you will get a 

sense of what it might be like to work with each candidate and 

will find out which candidates possess the required knowledge 

and skills. When conducted well, interviews can reveal candidates’ 

approaches to problems and challenges, their working style, and 

their communication skills. You can also learn a lot about their 

comfort and familiarity with empowerment evaluation. 

During one of your hiring committee meetings, spend some 

time planning your interview process. Issues to consider include 

who will conduct the interviews, how many candidates you will 

interview, how interviews will be scheduled, and what questions 

will be asked (Harding, 2000). Worksheet 7: Interview Plan on page 

83 in Appendix B can assist in this process. Each consideration is 

discussed in further detail below. 

Decide who will conduct the interviews 

Ideally, every member of your hiring committee will have a role in 

the interview process. That way, you will have multiple perspectives 

to consider when making your final decision, rather than relying 

on one person’s opinion of each candidate. Interviews can be 

conducted by a group, or candidates can be interviewed by one 

member of the hiring committee at a time. 

Note from the Field

“A panel format was used to conduct 

the interviews. The panel consisted 

of six individuals including our 

organization’s executive director, the 

director of the State Department of 

Health’s Division of Injury Prevention 

Control, the DELTA Program 

coordinator, the EMPOWER Program 

coordinator, and two local domestic 

violence/sexual assault program 

staff. Thus, our panel reflected the 

concerns and priorities of funders, 

program management, program 

staff, and community stakeholders.” 

Decide how many candidates to interview 

The number of applicants interviewed should be based on the size 

and quality of your applicant pool. Arbitrarily setting a number in 

advance could result in interviewing someone who you already 

know is not qualified or in missing someone who would be a good 

match for the position. 

45
Notes from the Field

“We interviewed four candidates 

once. We interviewed three in 

person and one evaluation team via 

phone because of their distance 

from our office.”

“We selected eight applicants for 

phone interviews and three for 

face-to-face interviews.”

Develop a list of interview questions 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

To compare candidates, the hiring committee should develop a 

core set of questions that are asked of every candidate. Questions 

tailored for each applicant may also be appropriate in order to get 

a better understanding of their unique skill set and experience 

as presented on their resume or in their proposal. For both core 

questions and tailored questions, the hiring committee should 

be prepared to ask follow-up or probing questions to ensure that 

the answer provided by a specific candidate actually answers 

the question or provides the required information. Also, be sure 

to give the applicant time to ask questions; this is important for 

the applicant, and it allows you to assess his or her interest in the 

position. 

All interviews should provide an opportunity for each candidate 

to describe their perspectives on empowerment evaluation. 

Specifically, candidates can describe their perspectives on the 

goals, activities, opportunities, and challenges associated with 

empowerment evaluation. The candidate can also describe how 

they would go about building individual and organizational 

evaluation capacity. Interview questions may seek to assess 

how the candidate understands and supports the three key 

empowerment evaluation roles: evaluator, organization, and 

funder. Make sure candidates understand the differences between 

these roles. A list of sample interview questions is provided on 

pages 93-94 in Appendix F. 

Decide how interviews will be scheduled 

Decide whether you want to schedule interviews back-to-back (on 

1 or 2 days) or spread them out over a longer period. Spreading 

them out may be easier logistically, but it also lengthens the hiring 

process and increases the possibility of losing a good candidate to 

another job while the process is being completed. 

The hiring committee may choose to have a key member conduct 

preliminary, informational interviews by phone before inviting 

candidates for a formal interview. This step allows you to find out 

more about applicants’ qualifications, tell them more about the 

position, and gauge their interest before you spend your time— 

and theirs—on a formal interview. 

Note from the Field

“Informational interviews were 

useful for the program coordinator 

and potential candidates—

candidates were better able to 

gauge if they fit the position, and 

the coordinator gained practice 

and confidence in describing the 

position.”

46
Notes from the Field

“I think our initial evaluator was too steeped in research and traditional evaluation, 

and we needed more support in evaluation capacity building than she was able to 

provide. We should have been more upfront in the interview that we wanted an 

evaluator who could serve as a facilitator to help build community ownership and 

investment in evaluation and strategy improvement.”

“Applicants were provided a copy of the interview questions an hour prior to the 

interview for their preparation. All interviews started with an introduction and 

overview of our organization,...and the program and a description of the interview 

process and timeline. Each member of the panel then proceeded to take turns 

asking the applicant questions from the list of interview questions, while the other 

members of the panel took notes on the applicant’s responses. Upon conclusion of the 

question phase of the interview, each applicant was allowed time to ask questions 

and/or provide the panel with other information relevant to their experience and 

qualifications for the position.”

47

Step 4: Assessing the Candidates 
Notes from the Field

“We had 16 questions regarding evaluation experience, domestic violence– related 

work, primary prevention, and experience in training and working with communitybased initiatives. Of the 16 questions, two were hypothetical scenarios. All questions 

were open-ended and we asked follow-up questions for clarity or more information as 

needed based on the responses that we received.”

“We conducted initial phone interviews and developed a phone interview report for 

each applicant. The hiring committee reviewed phone interview reports and resumes 

and selected three candidates for face-to-face interviews.... Applicants were rated 

using tools from the ‘How to Hire an Empowerment Evaluator’ tool kit [early draft of 

this manual], and the top candidate was brought in for an interview with the state 

DELTA Program team.”

48

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation
Step 4: Assessing the Candidates 

Plan other aspects of the interview 

You need not limit your interview process to asking questions. 

Activities such as taking candidates on a tour of your facilities 

and/or community and holding a “meet and greet” with other 

members of your organization or other partnering organizations 

can help you get to know candidates and help them get to know 

your organization. You could ask candidates to demonstrate their 

skills by completing a short writing assignment or interpreting 

hypothetical evaluation results. Some of the DELTA and EMPOWER 

Programs asked their candidates to prepare a 10-minute 

presentation about a particular topic targeted to a local community 

audience. 

Notes from the Field

“The final stage of the interview 

process was to assess the applicant’s 

writing ability. Applicants were 

asked to submit a writing sample 

telling us why they felt they were 

qualified to the position.”

“We asked each applicant to write 

a press release to motivate the 

community to get involved with 

local violence prevention efforts 

and to develop a presentation as 

if he or she was meeting with a 

local community-based group. 

This allowed our organization to 

assess how the candidate was able 

to communicate to audiences not 

familiar with violence prevention 

and evaluation topics.”

Conduct a mock interview before interviewing 

the first candidate 

You might find it useful to have members of your hiring 

committee practice an interview with a “pretend” candidate 

before interviewing the actual candidates. This step will help the 

committee get comfortable with the process and revise interview 

questions if needed. 

Note from the Field

“During the phone interview process, 

the first candidate was sort of a 

guinea pig. This person was at a 

disadvantage because the team 

learned much about how to improve 

the process through the experience 

of her call. A ‘mock interview’ prior 

to beginning our phone interviews 

may have helped us engage each 

applicant equally.”

Interview all members of evaluation teams 

If you decide to interview a firm or evaluation team that works as 

a group, be sure to interview the actual person(s) who would be 

assigned to your project and not only a sales consultant responsible 

for obtaining new clients. When interviewing university faculty, 

ask to interview any graduate students who would be involved 

in carrying out the project as well. Suggested questions for 

interviewing evaluation teams are listed on page 94 in Appendix F. 

Rate Interview Performance 

When conducting interviews, you will receive a great deal of 

information about each candidate. Using an interview performance 

rating form can help you capture and organize the information 

during and/or immediately after each interview. One has 

been provided for you on page 84 in Appendix B, Worksheet 8: 

Interview Performance Rating. Your form should allow you to 

record the quality of applicants’ responses and comments during 

the interview. The form should also allow you to record your 

observations of each candidate’s punctuality, sense of confidence, 

49
verbal communication style, and ability to relate easily and skills and demeanor to fulfill the requirements of the position. 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

comfortably with others. You can adapt the form to match your 

chosen interview questions and other qualifications of interest. 

Review Work Samples 

Reviewing work samples can be a useful way to assess a candidate’s 

writing, teaching, and evaluation skills. This activity can be time 

consuming, so your hiring committee may want to review work 

samples from only those candidates who are still being considered 

after the interviews. 

Ask the top candidates to provide a work sample that is similar to 

the kind of products your evaluator will be asked to develop with 

you and your evaluation team/organization (since in empowerment 

evaluation, most deliverables will be a joint effort). You may be 

interested in seeing a training manual or PowerPoint presentation 

used to train others on evaluation topics or an evaluation report or 

strategic plan they developed for or with an organization. Assess 

how well each candidate is able to translate complex evaluation 

terms into easy-to-understand language. Worksheet 9: Writing 

Sample Review on page 85 in Appendix B can be used to record 

your hiring committee’s assessment. 

Check References 

Professional references are an important source of information 

in the final stages of choosing a candidate for any position. 

When you have narrowed your search to no more than two or 

three candidates, ask each candidate to give you at least three 

professional references, along with contact information. Your 

organization may also consider asking candidates to sign a release 

form to allow each reference to speak freely about the candidate’s 

qualifications. 

Ideal references may include: 

z A faculty member who worked closely with the candidate during 

his or her academic training (this does not need to be required of 

well-established professionals). 

z A current or former employer or colleague who knows the 

candidate’s skills as an evaluator. 

z At least one practitioner (preferably two) from a program 

or organization with whom the candidate has worked as an 

evaluator or has worked with to build its evaluation capacity. 

It is common practice to call each reference and ask a series of 

questions about the applicant. You may find it helpful to share 

the job announcement with the reference, so that he or she can 

better gauge whether or not the applicant has the necessary 

When speaking to references, look for issues that did not emerge 

during other portions of the application process; references may 

express reservations about an applicant or provide a more balanced 

description of an applicant’s strengths and weaknesses. References 

can also help your hiring committee confirm or solidify its own 

impressions of the applicant, allowing your team to have greater 

confidence in its decision. 

Some questions you may want to ask references are: 

z How long have you known the applicant? What was the nature 

of your work together? 

z What is it like to work with the applicant? 

z How does he or she set priorities? How does he or she work with 

others? 

z How would you describe the applicant’s strengths and challenges 

as an evaluator? 

z The applicant is applying for an empowerment evaluator 

position. He or she will work as a coach to build evaluation 

capacity within our organization; he or she will give up control 

over many of the decisions in the evaluation process. Have you 

observed the applicant in this type of role before? If so, how did 

he or she manage that role? If not, how do you think he or she 

would manage that kind of role? 

z How would you describe the candidate’s skills and effectiveness 

in training and technical assistance? 

z How would you describe the candidate’s ability to facilitate 

group discussions to reach decisions where the members of the 

group may have very divergent priorities? 

z How would you describe the candidate’s ability to follow through 

on deliverables? 

z Do you have any concerns about recommending the applicant for 

this position? 

Select the Best Candidate(s) 

As you near the end of your interview process, one candidate may 

emerge as the best choice, and your organization may be ready to 

extend an offer with little deliberation. However, decisions do not 

always come this easily. You may have more than one excellent 

candidate to choose from, or you may have to weigh the strengths 

and limitations of each candidate. In making these tough decisions, 

it is helpful to consolidate the information you have from each part 

of the application and interview process into a single summary 

form for each candidate. Worksheet 10: Candidate Summary on 

page 86 and Worksheet 11: Candidate Ranking onpage 87 in 

50 Appendix B may be helpful in selecting the top candidate(s). 
51

Step 4: Assessing the Candidates 
Notes from the Field

“We engaged the committee in a consensus-building process by first narrowing 

the field from four to three candidates. Then we began listing on a white board the 

qualifications we were most looking for and rated the candidates. After that, we began 

polling committee members about their first and second choices so we could gauge 

where the group was. Consensus emerged within 45 minutes. We agreed on a first 

and second choice. Each committee member was given the right to block the 

decision if they felt it necessary. No one blocked or stood aside during the 

decision-making process.”

“We had two candidates who had extensive background in evaluation, domestic 

violence–related work, primary prevention, and experience in training and working 

with community-based initiatives. The deciding factors were the level of education 

and prior experience specifically with CDC projects.” 

“One candidate received higher ratings by some hiring committee members because 

she had adequate evaluation experience, but also had several years experience 

working with a local rape crisis center. The other candidate was rated higher by other 

committee members because she had a great deal more experience single-handedly 

managing evaluation projects, had used...empowerment evaluation previously, and 

had many years experience working with community groups made up of very diverse 

individuals (different socioeconomic, educational, racial and ethnic backgrounds) 

with successful outcomes... However, she did not have experience working on the 

issue of sexual violence.... One key question...was, “Which candidate brings more 

to the state prevention team that is currently missing from the team?” Since many 

members of the state prevention team have a great deal of experience working with 

sexual violence issues, the candidate with the strongest evaluation and community 

experience was the obvious choice.” 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

52
Step 4: Assessing the Candidates 

Make a Job Offer
 

Once your hiring committee selects your top candidate, your 

organization is ready to make a job offer. Decide who within the 

organization is the most appropriate person to extend an offer— 

the executive director, human resources director, or the program 

manager. Common practice is to notify the candidate of the offer 

by phone and follow up with a formal letter that documents the 

job offer. Depending on the candidate’s response and your budget, 

you may need to negotiate the rate until it is acceptable to both the 

candidate and your organization. 

Be prepared for the possibility that your top candidate may decline 

the position. In this case, you will want to extend an offer to your 

second-choice candidate, and possibly to a third-choice candidate. 

Wait to notify any qualified candidates that your position has been 

filled until after a candidate has accepted your offer. 

Note from the Field

“Three applicants emerged as possible candidates, all with various levels of expertise. 

A decision was made fairly easily by consensus of the group based on the candidate’s 

expertise in domestic violence and research. However, after further discussion with the 

candidate, she decided that it was not a good fit for her because she had never done 

an actual “evaluation,” although her past work mirrored the chosen planning process 

in many ways. A second and equally good choice was offered the position, and she 

too decided the contract would not be something she could take on due to previous 

obligations and other grant work at her university. Our third candidate accepted our 

offer and the hiring committee felt satisfied that she is an excellent choice, based on 

her extensive evaluation experience and openness to using the planning process and 

the empowerment evaluation principles. The candidate we finally hired actually has 

the most experience with this approach

53
54

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
Step 5: Writing an Evaluation Contract 

Step 5: Writing An Evaluation Contract 

An evaluation contract is a legal agreement between your your evaluator can expect from you. And it provides protection for 

organization and your chosen candidate about the work to be your organization and the evaluator if problems arise. Table 11 lists 

completed and the compensation to be provided in return. It a number of basic contractual elements (Harding, 2000). 

describes clearly what you expect from your evaluator and what 

Table 11. Common Elements of an Evaluation Contract 

z Agency name and address 

z Evaluator name, address, affiliation, and Social Security number 

z Person from agency responsible for monitoring the contract 

z Scope of work 

z Key deliverables (e.g., reports and products) and due dates 

z Duties and responsibilities 

z Required progress reports and meetings, including attendance at trainings or conferences 

z Payment amount, payment schedule, and conditions of payment 

z Liability release 

z Materials provided to the evaluator by the organization 

z Any special terms or conditions, including those for terminating the contract (especially for performance issues) 

z A “key personnel” clause if working with a consulting firm or evaluation team 

z Statement about confidentiality of the data (e.g., Human Subjects/Internal Review Board processes and approval) 

z Data ownership and publication rights 

z Restrictions on publishing or presenting evaluation findings 

z Signature and date for both organization representatives and evaluator 

If your organization is hiring an empowerment evaluator as a staff 

member, then you’ll follow its standard procedures for extending 

an offer and determining a salary. This section provides an 

overview of key contracting issues that need to be considered in 

any contracting process and can inform an organization’s existing 

contracting procedures, whether the organization is a government 

agency or private not-for-profit. 

Unexpected delays and challenges can arise while writing a 

contract. Be sure to build in plenty of time for this process; then, if 

you run into roadblocks, your timeline will not be thrown off course. 

55
 

Notes from the Field

“The contracting process took longer than we had initially expected and required 

much more “back and forth” negotiation than we had anticipated....As we 

are technically contracted with a university, it created additional contractual 

complexities—the selected evaluator and coalition staff would find they were in 

agreement on a contractual draft, only to have it refused by the university nonevaluator staff. The contracting process was definitely the longest and most laborintensive part of the contract award process.”

“Designing the contract forced us to be very strategic about timeframe, traveling, and 

budget issues. The negotiations, however, went very smoothly.”

“The contracting process was somewhat unwieldy. First, because of the bureaucracy 

of being a university-affiliated, community-focused organization, the evaluation team 

uses memoranda of understanding (MOU) instead of contracts and refers to awards 

as ‘grants.’ This was not evident until almost the end of the contract process as the 

budget side of the organization is handled by individuals other than the evaluators. 

This created issues in terms of format, compliance with CDC guidelines, and potential 

legal enforcement if problems arose at a later date. We eventually created an MOU that 

greatly resembles a contract. Final struggles revolved around content for the contract/

MOU as this was the first time our organization had utilized an outside evaluator. 

Much time was spent by the program coordinator and the coalition attorney drafting 

a document that was not unnecessarily complicated but provided protection for 

potential disputes.

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Define the Scope of Work and 

Deliverables 

The scope of work and list of deliverables should be designed 

to serve a well-defined purpose or need, usually building 

the evaluation capacity of an organization and coaching the 

organization through an evaluation of a specific strategy. As you 

specify each task, responsibility, or deliverable in the contract, 

continuously ask yourselves how that task or deliverable relates 

back to your main purpose or goal for hiring an empowerment 

evaluator. You can use the list of responsibilities and deliverables 

specified in your job announcement or RFP as a starting point. 

Members of your organization will share responsibility with your 

empowerment evaluator for building the evaluation capacity of 

your organization and in planning and conducting an evaluation 

of a specific strategy. Therefore, the evaluation contract should 

describe how your evaluator will “assist,”“coach,”“support,” and 

“inform” your capacity-building efforts and your initial evaluation. 

56 You want to avoid statements like “The evaluator will plan and 
57

Step 5: Writing an Evaluation Contract 
conduct an evaluation of the strategy” because such language 

does not reflect the principles of empowerment evaluation. It is 

Your organization may also consider including a phased-work 

plan in the contract. Under such a plan, the empowerment 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

appropriate to require your evaluator to submit progress reports 

about his or her role in promoting and fulfilling the purpose and 

scope of work of your contract. However, if you want to uphold the 

principles of empowerment evaluation, the evaluator should not 

be solely responsible for building your organization’s evaluation 

capacity or for any evaluation conducted. The due dates for each 

task and/or deliverable should be explicit in the contract. 

Define a Payment Rate and 

Schedule 

There are different ways to arrange payment in an evaluation 

contract. A “fixed price contract” is when you pay a certain fee for 

a certain scope of work over a period of time. In this arrangement, 

the evaluator agrees to fulfill the stated responsibilities, tasks, and 

deliverables in the contract over a specified time period (typically 

1, 3, or 6 months) for a fixed amount, regardless of the amount of 

time required to complete the individual tasks. When using a fixed 

price contract, you and your evaluator should estimate the amount 

of time expected to fulfill the scope of work and then calculate the 

fixed amount based on an agreed upon rate of pay. The benefit 

of this approach is that you can be certain from the outset how 

much the evaluation will cost for a given period. The downside is, 

if you greatly overestimate or underestimate the amount of time 

necessary to do the work, you could end up paying more or less 

than is appropriate. 

Another type of contract is a “time and materials contract.” In 

this arrangement, you agree to pay an established rate for the 

evaluator’s time and other resources used. Evaluators charge 

different rates for their time depending on their education and level 

of experience. Hourly rates may range from $50 to $100 an hour; 

daily rates may range from $300 to $800 or higher. Some evaluators 

may lower their rate for time-intensive projects. The evaluator will 

typically send a monthly or quarterly invoice to your organization 

detailing the hours spent in that period and a total amount due. 

This arrangement can be useful when you expect the amount of 

time the evaluator spends on the project to vary from month to 

month. It allows payment to match the ebb and flow of the work. 

On the other hand, if the evaluator ends up spending much more 

time on the project than you anticipated, the cost of the evaluation 

could be higher than you had planned. To protect your budget, you 

can specify a monthly, quarterly, or yearly limit. For example, when 

specifying the rate of pay in the contract, you would add “...not to 

exceed $___ over a 6-month period.” 

evaluator must complete satisfactory work and submit acceptable 

deliverables for a given phase before beginning work included in 

the next phase. 

Be aware of extra fees when contracting with 

a university or research firm 

If you choose to work with an evaluator from a university or 

an evaluation firm, you may be charged indirect fees by the 

university or firm in addition to the rate charged by the evaluator 

or evaluation team. In some cases, you may have the option of 

contracting directly with the individual evaluator rather than with 

the university or corporate entity to avoid these fees. In other cases, 

professionals may be legally bound to work only through their 

affiliate organization. 

Indirect fees are used to pay utilities, office space, office supplies 

as well as support the university’s or firm’s infrastructure, such as 

libraries and information technology systems. These fees can range 

from 15% to more than 50% of the base cost of a given contract. Do 

not assume that the initial fee quote is non-negotiable. Sometimes 

fees designed for large, federal research grants are quoted for 

nonprofit contracts by mistake; more appropriate fee structures 

may be available for smaller, nonprofit organizations. 

If you work for a government agency, you may want to investigate 

if your agency has a standing agreement with the particular 

university regarding its indirect fee rate. 

Develop a Budget for Other Expenses 

After developing a payment rate and schedule and negotiating 

indirect fees, you and your empowerment evaluator will need to 

develop a budget that covers expenses other than the evaluator’s 

hourly rate and indirect fees. Such costs can include travel 

expenses, communication costs, and office supplies. A sample 

budget is provided on page 95 in Appendix G; although it is for an 

evaluation team, the budget categories also apply to working with 

a single evaluator. 

58
Step 5: Writing an Evaluation Contract 

Specify Personnel When 

Contracting with an 

Evaluation Team 

If you are contracting with an evaluation team from a university 

or research firm, be sure to include clear language in your contract 

about who will be working on your evaluation contract and in what 

roles. Frequent and unnecessary changes in the members of your 

evaluation team can disrupt the momentum of capacity building 

and prevent the kind of relationship building that facilitates good 

empowerment evaluation. Therefore, you want to specify under 

what conditions evaluation team members may change or be 

replaced so that such changes do not occur without your prior 

knowledge and consent. Consider including a “key personnel” 

clause to your contract such as the one that follows. 

Sample 

“Key Personnel” Clause

The individuals identified below are 

considered essential to the work 

being performed under this contract. 

Substitution, or substantial reduction 

in their efforts, shall not be made 

without prior written approval 

of [Organization]. In the event of 

the continued unavailability of 

designated personnel or personnel 

acceptable to [Organization], 

[Organization] shall have the right to 

terminate this contract.

Designated Key Personnel: 

[name(s) of key person(s)]

Specify Data and Product Ownership
 

Your organization and your empowerment evaluator will need to 

specify who owns the data and products developed during the 

empowerment evaluation process. In some cases, your organization 

may wish to specify that the data and results produced through the 

empowerment evaluation process will belong to your organization. 

In this case, your contract should include a clause that requires 

your evaluator to obtain prior approval before using data from the 

evaluation in conference presentations or professional publications. 

In other cases, you and your empowerment evaluator may want to 

share ownership of data and products developed, with each party 

having certain rights and responsibilities. 

State Conditions for Termination and 


Steps to Address Performance Issues
 

The evaluation contract should include a clause that allows your 

organization to terminate the contract if the evaluator is not 

fulfilling your evaluation needs. A progressive course of action 

may be outlined in the contract regarding poor performance; this 

action plan should be reviewed in the initial orientation with the 

empowerment evaluator. Also, your organization may decide to 

have a general termination clause in the contract and work with 

the empowerment evaluator early in the process to develop a 

progressive course of action regarding performance. 

Have an Attorney Review Your 

Contract 

Have an attorney review your contract to ensure that your 

organization is fully protected. If you work for a government 

organization, your legal department will probably be required to 

review any contract before it is signed by all parties. 

59
60

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
 

Step 6: Building an Effective Relationship With Your Evaluator 

Step 6: Building an Effective Relationship
 

With Your Evaluator 


To build an effective working relationship with your evaluator, 

you will need to establish an empowerment evaluation team; 

exchange information, including expectations of and experiences 

with evaluation; define roles and responsibilities; and establish a 

process and schedule for communication. You’ll also need to outline 

a process to address any problems that arise with your evaluator’s 

performance. This section describes each of these steps in detail. 

Establish an Empowerment 

Evaluation Team 

Your empowerment evaluator is an evaluation coach (if you hired 

an evaluation team, you have a group of evaluation coaches), and 

a coach works with a team. Your empowerment evaluation team 

should be made up of key members of your organization who will 

be involved in the inner workings of building evaluation capacity 

and conducting an initial evaluation of a strategy. It should also 

include key individuals who are directly involved in developing and 

implementing the initial strategy to be evaluated. An ideal size for 

an evaluation team is four to six individuals. 

Not everyone in your organization can be on the evaluation 

team. However, all members of your organization, and your key 

stakeholders, should be aware of the intent to build organizational 

evaluation capacity through the “learn-by-doing” process of 

evaluating the organization’s strategies to assess if they are 

achieving their stated goals and outcomes. Often the “learnby-doing” process is initiated by the organization selecting one 

particular strategy to evaluate to see if it is achieving its stated 

goals and outcomes. Other strategies may be evaluated at a later 

date as organizational evaluation capacity increases. Organizational 

members and stakeholders should have input into any evaluations 

and be informed of the evaluation results and their implications. 

You can include input from other members of your organization and 

other stakeholders through focus groups, quarterly meetings, and 

trainings. 

Conduct an Orientation for the 

Evaluation Team 

An orientation session is an excellent way for members of the 

evaluation team to exchange information relevant to building the 

evaluation capacity of the organization and evaluating a specific 

strategy. It allows the entire evaluation team to get on the same 

page regarding the purpose of the empowerment evaluation 

process, evaluation team, and the contract with the empowerment 

evaluator. The orientation session may take place in one day or over 

several days or weeks. 

During orientation, your organization may provide the evaluator 

with information such as: 

z History of your organization, including its history with evaluation 

z Organization’s mission statement 

z Organization’s current strategic plan 

z Organizational chart 

z Job descriptions 

z Copies of grant proposals and requirements from funders 

z Notes or materials from your organization’s discussion regarding 

its readiness to participate in an empowerment evaluation 

process (see Step 1, pages 23–26) 

z Copy of this manual 

z Documents (e.g., grants, progress reports, any previous 

evaluations) related to the initial strategy to be evaluated 

Your organization may also ask the evaluator to attend key 

organizational and partnership meetings, tour your facilities, and 

meet with staff and possibly service recipients. 

As part of this orientation process, the evaluator may provide the 

organization with a more in-depth description of empowerment 

evaluation—including key lessons, successes, and challenges 

from the literature and an overview of his or her experience with 

evaluation in general and empowerment evaluation specifically. 

Given that a main component of empowerment evaluation 

is capacity building, this orientation session should include 

61
discussions with key organizational staff regarding current 

evaluation capacity of both individuals and the organization. 

empowerment evaluator. If roles change as capacity increases, 

they need to be openly redefined so that all team members know 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

The orientation process will allow the empowerment evaluator 

to assess both facilitators and barriers to building organizational 

evaluation capacity and make recommendations for how to build 

organizational evaluation capacity. 

Establish Roles 

As noted earlier, there are three major roles defined within 

empowerment evaluation: the evaluator, the organization, 

and the funder. It is important to establish up front how each 

empowerment evaluation team member fits into these roles and 

into the collaborative process that is empowerment evaluation. 

Who does what, when, how, and to what standards? 

Over time, roles may change. For instance, the empowerment 

evaluator may initially facilitate training and technical assistance. 

Later, as the organization’s evaluation capacity increases, 

organizational staff may co-facilitate these activities with the 

who is doing what. Thus, role clarification and re-clarification 

may be ongoing. 

Defining roles may initially pose a significant challenge, but it 

is also an opportunity for team members to build cohesion and 

a vision for their work. It is also a time to address similar and 

different work styles and find ways to minimize conflict among 

the work styles. Defining roles in a group setting can ensure that 

each person understands, rather than assumes, what the roles and 

responsibilities of the other team members are and where roles 

may overlap. Extra effort is needed to determine processes for 

handling overlapping roles and responsibilities. 

Part of establishing roles includes creating a clear process for 

making decisions that reflects the empowerment evaluation 

principles. Thus, your empowerment evaluation team should 

have a substantial discussion about what types of decisions will 

be made by whom and under what circumstances. Once agreed 

upon, these decision-making protocols should be written up 

and distributed to all empowerment evaluation team members. 

The decision-making protocols may need to be modified as 

the evaluation capacity building process proceeds to take 

into consideration new information or changes in roles and 

responsibilities among team members. 

Establish a Communication 

Schedule 

Set up a communication and meeting schedule. Do you need to 

have weekly, biweekly, or monthly meetings of the evaluation 

team? Will minutes be kept, and if so, by whom? Do you need to set 

up weekly phone contact between the evaluator and the project 

director in addition to regular meetings? Is there an efficient way to 

communicate with all members of the evaluation team by e-mail? 

Be willing to make changes to the communication plan as needed. 

Review Contract Information 


Regarding Performance Issues
 

Performance issues may include a breakdown in communication, 

lack of follow through, failure to provide deliverables on time, 

poor quality of work, and actions in clear contradiction to 

the empowerment evaluation principles. The organization’s 

expectations in each of these areas need to be clearly expressed to 

62
Step 6: Building an Effective Relationship With Your Evaluator 

the evaluator, and the evaluator needs to acknowledge that he or 

she understands these expectations. 

A progressive course of action to address performance issues 

may be developed collaboratively by your organization and the 

empowerment evaluator. It’s good to have a regular mechanism 

for check-in and assessment by all involved, perhaps as part of 

the communication schedule. This regular check-in should assess 

progress on deliverables and meeting the work plan. 

Note from the Field

“As with any consultant, there will 

be a period of learning. To address 

this learning curve and prevent 

larger problems later, attend to 

misunderstandings immediately in a 

constructive, collaborative manner.”

Have a plan for when 

things go wrong 

When performance issues do arise, your organization should 

address them as quickly as possible. An honest, open dialogue 

within the evaluation team may be appropriate in some cases; 

in other cases, a meeting between the organization’s main 

contact and the evaluator may be more appropriate in order to 

communicate the seriousness of the performance issue. 

Performance issues may stem not from the evaluator, but from 

the organization’s growing pains in integrating evaluation into 

its daily activities. Campbell et al. (2004) noted that even after 

initial orientation meetings, some staff were still confused 

about the role of the empowerment evaluator. Some staff still 

thought the empowerment evaluator was hired as an external 

evaluator to assess the organization’s strategies rather than 

build the organization’s evaluation capacity to evaluate its own 

strategies through a learn-by-doing process. In this instance, 

the organization’s unwritten expectations of the evaluator did 

not match the written expectations in the evaluation contract. 

Continued open dialogue about expectations and empowerment 

evaluation may help with this issue. 

In some cases, the evaluator may realize that he or she likes leading 

and conducting independent evaluations more than teaching or 

building evaluation capacity according to empowerment evaluation 

principles. These evaluators are good to keep in mind should 

your organization ever want to complement its empowerment 

evaluation work with independent evaluation. 

Overall, it is important to review the contract and deliverables in 

an honest, open dialogue to ensure that everyone is in agreement 

about the deliverables, the processes used to reach those 

deliverables, and the parties responsible for producing them. Such 

a dialogue may reveal that the organization and evaluator have 

different understandings of these issues that cannot be reconciled. 

In that case, part ways amicably. On the other hand, such a 

dialogue may re-energize both parties. 

63
64

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 
 

Step 7: Assessing and Sustaining the Evaluation 

Step 7: Assessing and Sustaining 


the Evaluation 

Once your empowerment evaluation process is underway, 

periodically assess whether the process is meeting your 

organization’s needs and accomplishing its purpose—which is 

ultimately to help your organization build its evaluation capacity so 

that it can assess whether or not its strategies are achieving their 

stated goals and outcomes. Your first such assessment should occur 

early in the process so you can identify and address problems before 

they become more difficult to resolve. 

Make Sure You Are Really Doing 

Empowerment Evaluation 

Even when all parties agree to do empowerment evaluation, it 

can still be easy to slip into more independent evaluation roles in 

which the evaluator conducts the evaluation and reports findings 

back to the organization and stakeholders who implement the 

strategy. Stakeholders may find that they have so much to do just 

in implementing a strategy and doing their “regular” work that it is 

easier to let the evaluator do the evaluation work. Evaluators can 

also stray from the principles when they assume too much control 

over the evaluation process and do not facilitate enough ownership 

among organizational staff. When this happens, many of the 

benefits of empowerment evaluation are lost. If the empowerment 

evaluation activities are not building the organization’s ability to 

integrate evaluation within the organization, then it is not really 

empowerment evaluation. 

The best way to ensure that your organization reaps the benefits 

of empowerment evaluation is to be confident that your entire 

evaluation team is working in a way that is consistent with the 10 

principles of empowerment evaluation. Keep the principles visible 

by posting them in your meeting space, handing them out at 

your meetings, and putting them on the cover of your evaluation 

notebook. Pick one principle to discuss at each of your evaluation 

meetings and ask what you could be doing to better promote that 

principle in your work together. 

To help you stay on track, assess how each major stakeholder in 

your evaluation is maintaining the empowerment evaluation 

principles. You can do this early in your evaluation process as a 

baseline measurement, and continue to make periodic assessments 

to measure your progress over time (e.g., every 6 or 12 months). 

To do a quantitative assessment, you can use a rating scale like 

the one suggested in Worksheet 12: Empowerment Evaluation 

Principles Role Assessment located on page 88 in Appendix B. You 

can use the role descriptions provided on pages 18–21 (Tables 2–4) 

as a guide to complete the scale. You can also adapt Worksheet 12 

or create your own. To collect more in-depth information, you can 

conduct interviews and/or focus groups with your key stakeholders 

about the evaluation process to learn more about how they are 

maintaining the empowerment evaluation principles. 

As you assess your use of the empowerment evaluation principles, 

do not expect perfection. Miller and Campbell (2006) reviewed 47 

empowerment evaluation case examples published in the literature 

and found very few case examples that adhered to all 10 principles. 

Rather, most of the case examples indicated that they were 

consistent with 4 to 7 of the empowerment evaluation principles. 

Six empowerment evaluation principles—community ownership, 

inclusion, democratic participation, community knowledge, 

evidence-based strategies, and accountability—may be practiced 

and observed earlier in the empowerment evaluation process 

than the four principles of improvement, social justice, capacity 

building, and organizational learning. Your organization may want 

to use the four latter principles as indicators as to whether or not 

the empowerment evaluation process is having an impact on your 

organization. Is your organization more focused on improvement 

after working with an empowerment evaluator for 6 months than 

it was before? After 6 months of working with an empowerment 

evaluator, what types of individual and organizational capacity 

have been built? Has your organization’s culture increased its 

focus on learning from mistakes? Is your organization now more 

dedicated to social justice activities than it was before working with 

an empowerment evaluator? 

Continue the Evaluation Process 


After the Evaluation Contract Ends 


Empowerment evaluation is a long-term investment. That 

investment only pays off if you sustain empowerment evaluation 

as an ongoing process after your initial contract with your 

empowerment evaluator ends. A major goal of empowerment 

evaluation is to make evaluation a part of your daily operations. 

The key to sustaining empowerment evaluation is in building 65
organizational evaluation capacity. The greater that capacity at the end of an evaluation contract, the less dependent you will be on 

outside consultants to meet your future evaluation needs. Start thinking now about how you can sustain your evaluation process after your 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

empowerment evaluation contract ends. 

Note from the Literature

Foundation for the Future, which coordinates a range of services to families in 

Spartanburg, South Carolina, provides an excellent example of how to sustain 

empowerment evaluation over time (Keener, Snell-Johns, Livet & Wandersman, 

2005). After 2 years of doing empowerment evaluation, a key staff member 

of the organization had developed sufficient capacity to conduct a number of 

evaluation tasks independent of the evaluator. To reflect the change in her role and 

responsibilities, the organization changed her job title from Collaboration Manager 

to Director of Collaboration and Evaluation. Eventually, the individual holding this 

position needed to leave her position. Before hiring someone to replace her, the 

organization considered the skills that were needed to carry on the evaluation tasks 

that the current employee had acquired over time. The new evaluation tasks were 

included in the job description, and the organization selected a new employee with an 

appropriate educational background and skill set to carry out the tasks. The departing 

employee provided hands-on training to the new employee. The first evaluation report 

prepared by the new Director of Collaboration and Evaluation was equal in quality to 

those of the previous Director of Collaboration and Evaluation. The staff transition was 

a seamless process that ensured no organizational evaluation capacity was lost.

The note from the literature illustrates the development of both 

individual and organizational evaluation capacity. Regarding 

individual capacity, one particular employee was able to take 

on new evaluation tasks over time so that she could eventually 

do them with little help from the evaluator and in collaboration 

with other stakeholders. To build individual evaluation capacity, 

staff members are typically given tools, training, and technical 

assistance to acquire new knowledge, skills, and motivation to use 

evaluation tools and methods. Individuals also need to have the 

resources necessary to do evaluation work (e.g., time, computer 

equipment and software, survey instruments). 

Fortunately, the organization described in the note from the 

literature did not stop its organizational capacity building efforts 

after it developed significant evaluation capacity among one 

particular employee, the Director of Collaboration and Evaluation. 

Its leaders recognized that people come and go from organizations, 

and that if they did not integrate their employee’s new skills within 

the organization, the employee’s evaluation capacity would simply 

go away when she left the organization. By changing the title of 

a key position to reflect evaluation and collaboration, which is 

essential within empowerment evaluation, and by incorporating 

evaluation skills and tasks into the position’s job description, the 

66
Step 7: Assessing and Sustaining the Evaluation 

organization took a significant step in sustaining organizational 

evaluation capacity. An additional significant step would be to 

incorporate the practice of empowerment evaluation principles into 

every staff members’ job description. 

Specifically, evaluation capacity can be integrated into your 

organization’s structures, processes, resources, and priorities. 

Consider including evaluation activities in the job descriptions of 

various staff members. Assess staff members’ performance related 

to the evaluation activities included in their job descriptions during 

annual reviews and establish regular, perhaps monthly, meetings 

to review evaluation results and make recommendations for 

improvement. Offer regular training and technical assistance to 

address the various evaluation activities for which the employees 

are responsible. Seek funding streams that support evaluation 

within the organization, and dedicate staff, management, and 

board time to developing evaluation skills and establishing 

evaluation processes. Finally, prioritize the integration of evaluation 

into regular programmatic activities within your organization 

rather than viewing evaluation as a luxury or add-on feature. 

Campbell and colleagues (2004) conducted a study to find 

out whether sexual assault programs that participated in an 

empowerment evaluation project were still doing evaluation after 

the project ended. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted 

with 10 prevention programs and 24 victim service programs. The 

study found that 90% of the programs were still doing evaluation 

about one year after the formal empowerment evaluation project 

had ended and that all of the programs had made changes in their 

policies and procedures based on the results of their evaluation 

findings. Perhaps what is most remarkable about these findings 

is that, because of staff turnover, only 8 of the 34 program staff 

interviewed had worked with the empowerment evaluation 

project. Even so, the new staff members were familiar with the 

project and referred specifically to tools that they still use from 

the project. These findings suggest that these sexual assault 

programs were successful in building and sustaining organizational 

evaluation capacity through an empowerment evaluation process. 

67
 

 

 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Glossary
 

Child maltreatment 

Cultural competence 

Effectiveness 

Efficacy 

Empowerment evaluation 

Evaluation 

Individual evaluation 

capacity 

Intimate partner violence 

(IPV) 

Organization 

Organizational evaluation 

capacity 

Outcome evaluation 

Participatory evaluation 

Any act or series of acts of commission or omission [that results in harm, potential for harm, or threat 

of harm to a child. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and neglect are specific forms of 

child maltreatment (Leeb, Paulozzi, Melanson, Simon & Arias, 2008). 

A developmental process that results in individual, community, and organizational understanding 

of cultural differences and similarities within, among, and between communities, cultures, and 

populations. This competence requires drawing on the community-based values, traditions, and 

customs to work with knowledgeable persons of, and from, specific populations in developing specific 

strategies and communications to address their needs (Cross et al.,1989; National Center for Cultural 

Competence, n.d.; Pyles & Kim, 2006). 

The positive outcomes of a strategy, program, or policy derived under real-world conditions, such as 

limited resources for materials and training and limited control over factors affecting implementation 

(Flay et al., 2005) 

The positive outcomes of a strategy, program, or policy derived under optimal or ideal conditions of 

delivery, such as having adequate resources, well-trained and supervised personnel, and control over 

factors affecting implementation (Flay et al., 2005) 

An evaluation approach that provides program stakeholders with tools for program planning, 

implementation, and self-evaluation and integration of evaluation into the planning and management 

of the program or organization for the purpose of increasing the likelihood that programs will achieve 

their intended outcomes (Wandersman et al., 2005). 

The systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and outcomes of strategies 

(i.e., programs) to make judgments about the strategy, improve strategy effectiveness, and/or inform 

decisions about future strategy development (U.S. DHHS, 2005). 

The extent to which individuals have the knowledge, skills, resources, and motivation to plan, conduct, 

analyze, and use evaluation. 

Physical, sexual, or psychological harm by a current or former intimate partner. IPV can occur among 

heterosexual or same-sex couples and does not require sexual intimacy. The four categories of IPV are 

physical violence, sexual violence, threat of physical or sexual violence, and psychological/emotional 

abuse (including coercive tactics) (Saltzman, Fanslow, McMahon & Shelley, 1999). 

A coalition, partnership, local or state government agency, or nonprofit agency and its respective 

stakeholders. 

The extent to which a given organization has the structures, resources, processes, and motivation to 

plan, conduct, analyze, and use evaluation (Gibbs, Napp, Jolly, Westover & Uhl, 2002; Torres & Preskill, 

2001). 

The systematic collection of information to assess the impact of a strategy or program, present 

conclusions about its merit or worth, and make recommendations about future strategy or program 

direction or improvement (U.S. DHHS, 2005). 

Evaluation that involves collaborative work with the individuals, groups, or communities who have a 

decided stake in the program development (Cousins & Whitmore, 1998). 

68
 

Glossary 

Primary prevention	 Approaches that aim to prevent violence before it occurs (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002). 

Process evaluation 	 The systematic collection of information to document and assess how a particular program or strategy 

was implemented and operated (U.S. DHHS, 2005) 

Program	 The combination of several strategies designed to deliver reinforcing messages to one intended 

population in a variety of settings (Powell , Dahlberg, Friday, Mercy, Thornton, & Crawford, 1996). 

Protective factor	 An attribute, situation, condition, or environmental context that buffers or moderates the effect of risk 

(US DHHS, 2001). 

Research	 Using scientific methods, standards (e.g., internal and external validity), and designs (e.g., experimental 

design that uses a control group) to evaluate the efficacy or effectiveness of a strategy, program, or 

policy (U.S. DHHS, 2005) 

Risk factor	 An attribute, situation, condition‚ or environmental context that increases the chances of a person 

behaving violently or experiencing violence (U.S. DHHS, 2001). 

Sexual violence	 Completed or attempted sex acts against the victim’s will or involving a victim who is unable to consent, 

abusive sexual contact, and non-contact sexual abuse, including sexual harassment and stalking (Basile 

& Saltzman, 2002). 

Social ecological model	 A multi-level model that suggests human behavior (e.g., violence) is the result of the complex interplay 

of individual, relationship, community, and societal factors (Dahlberg & Krug, 2002). 

Stakeholders	 The persons or organizations having an investment in what will be learned from an evaluation and what 

will be done with the knowledge (U.S. DHHS, 1999). 

Strategy	 A set of activities that, together, are intended to reduce violent behavior, such as social skills training, 

mentoring, social marketing, or policy changes (Powell et al., 1996). These multiple activities together 

are intended to achieve goals or results at a specific level of the social ecology. 

Suicide and Suicidal behavior exists on a continuum from thinking about ending one’s life (i.e., suicidal ideation), 

Suicidal Behavior to developing a plan, to nonfatal suicidal behavior (i.e., suicide attempt), to ending one’s life (suicide) 

(CDC, n.d.). 

Youth violence	 The intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, exerted by or against children, 

adolescents, or young adults (ages 10–29) that results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, 

death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation (Mercy, Butchart, Farrington, & Cerda, 

2002). 

69
Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

References
 

Basile, K. C., & Saltzman, L. E. (2002). Sexual violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements version 1.0. Atlanta: 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. 

Brennan Ramirez, L. K., Baker, E. A., Metzler, M. (2008). Promoting Health Equity: A resource to help communities address social 

determinants of health. Atlanta: Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Campbell, R., Dorey, H., Naegeli, M., Grubstein, L. K., Bennett, K. K., Bonter, F., et al. (2004). An empowerment evaluation model for sexual 

assault programs: Empirical evidence of effectiveness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 251–262. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. Morbidity and Mortality 

Weekly Report, 48(RR-11). Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. (no date). Suicide Prevention, Scientific Information: Definitions. Retrieved April 30, 2008 

from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/Suicide/Suicide-def.htm. 

Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A. (2004). Getting to outcomes 2004: Promoting accountability through methods and tools for 

planning, implementation, and evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 

Cook, T. D., & Shadish, W. R. (1987). Program evaluation: the worldly science. Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 12, 31–70. 

Cross, T., Bazron, B., Dennis, K., & Isaacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent system of care: A monograph on effective services for 

minority children who are severely emotionally disturbed: Volume I. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child Development 

Center. 

Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 5–23. 

Dahlberg, L. L., & Krug, E.G. (2002). Violence—a global overview. In E. G. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi & R. Lozano (Eds.), 

World Report on Violence and Health (pp. 1-21). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization. 

Dugan, M. A. (1996). Participatory and empowerment evaluation. In D. M. Fetterman, S. J. Kaftarian & A. Wandersman (Eds.), 

Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability (pp. 277–303). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Fetterman, D. M. (1982). Ibsen’s baths: Reactivity and insensitivity (A misapplication of the treatment-control design in a national 

evaluation). Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 4(3), 261–279. 

Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation [American Evaluation Association presidential address]. Evaluation Practice, 15 (1), 

1–15. 

Fetterman, D. M. (2001a). Empowerment evaluation and self-determination: A practical approach toward program improvement and 

capacity building. In N. Schneiderman, M. A. Spears, J. M. Silva, H. Tomes & J. H. Gentry (Eds.), Integrating behavioral and social 

sciences with public health (pp. 321–350). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

Fetterman, D. M. (2001b). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Fetterman, D. M. (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice: Assessing levels of commitment. In D. M. Fetterman & A. 

Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 42–72). New York: Guilford Press. 

Flay, B., Biglan, A., Boruch, R., Castro, F., Gottfredson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness 

and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151–175. 

70
References 

Gibbs, D., Napp, D., Jolly, D., Westover, B., & Uhl, G. (2002). Increasing evaluation capacity within community-based HIV prevention 

programs. Evaluation and Program Planning, 25, 261–269. 

Harding, W. (2000). Locating, hiring, and managing an evaluator. Newton, MA: CSAP’s Northeast Center for the Application of Prevention 

Technologies. 

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation. (1994). The program evaluation standards (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Keener, D. C., Snell-Johns, J., Livet, M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Lessons that influenced the current conceptualization of empowerment 

evaluation: Reflections from two evaluation projects (pp. 73–91). In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wanderman (Eds.), Empowerment 

evaluation principles in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Leeb, R. T., Paulozzi, L., Melanson, C., Simon, T., & Arias, I. (2008). Child maltreatment surveillance: Uniform definitions for public health 

and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control. 

Livet, M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Organizational functioning: Facilitating effective interventions and increasing the odds of 

programming success. In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment Evaluation Principles in Practice (pp. 123–154). 

New York: Guilford Press. 

Mayer, S. E. (1996). Building community capacity with evaluation activities that empower. In D. M. Fetterman, S. J. Kaftarian & A. 

Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability (pp. 332–378). Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Mercy, J. A., Butchart, A., Farrington, D., and Cerda, M. (2002). Youth Violence. In E. G. Krug, L. L. Dahlberg, J. A. Mercy, A. B. Zwi, & R. Lozano 

(Eds.), World Report on Violence and Health (pp. 25-56). Geneva: World Health Organization. 

Miller, R. L., & Campbell, R. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(3), 

296–319. 

National Center for Cultural Competence. (n.d.). Conceptual frameworks/models, guiding values and principles. Retrieved April 5, 2008, from 

Georgetown University Center for Child and Human Development Web site http://www11.georgetown.edu/research/gucchd/nccc/ 

foundations/frameworks.html. 

Powell, K. E., Dahlberg, L. L., Friday, J., Mercy, J. A., Thornton, T., & Crawford, S. (1996). Prevention of youth violence: rationale and 

characteristics of 15 evaluation projects. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 12(Suppl.), 3–12. 

Preskill, H. & Torres, R. T. (1999). Evaluative inquiry for learning in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Pyles, L., & Kim, K. M. (2006). A multilevel approach to cultural competence: A study of the community response to underserved domestic 

violence victims. Families In Society, 87, 221–229. 

Rossi, P. H., & Freeman, H. E. (1989). Evaluation: A systematic approach (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., Lipsey, M. W. (1999). Evaluation: A systematic approach (6th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 

Saltzman, L. E., Fanslow, J. L., McMahon, P. M., & Shelley, G. A. (1999). Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and 

recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury 

Prevention and Control. 71
Schnoes, C. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Chambers, J. M. (2000). Empowerment evaluation applied: Experiences, analysis, and 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

recommendations from a case study. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), 53–64. 

Torres, R. T., & Preskill, H. (2001). Evaluation and organizational learning: Past, present, future. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 

387–395. 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [U.S. DHHS] (2001). Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC:U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services [U.S. DHHS]. (2005). Introduction to program evaluation for public health programs: A selfstudy guide. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

University of Texas – Houston Health Science Center, School of Public Health (1998). Practical evaluation of public health programs. Atlanta, 

GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from http://www.cdc.gov/eval/workbook.PDF 

Wandersman, A. & Snell-Johns, J. (2005). Empowerment evaluation: clarity, dialogue, and growth. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 

421-428. 

Wandersman, A., Snell-Johns, J., Lentz, B. E., Fetterman, D. M., Keener, D. C., Livet, M., et al. (2005). The principles of empowerment 

evaluation. In D. M. Fetterman, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 27–41). New York: 

Guilford Press. 

Weaver, L. & Cousins, J. B. (2004). Unpacking the participatory process. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 1, 19–40. 

72
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix A: Resources for General Evaluation and Empowerment Evaluation 

Appendix A: Resources for General 

Evaluation and Empowerment Evaluation 

General Evaluation 

American Evaluation Association 

www.eval.org 

This website includes listings and links for a variety of evaluation 

resources and networks. 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) Resources 

1. CDC Evaluation Working Group Homepage 

www.cdc.gov/eval/index.htm 

This website provides an overview of the work of the CDC 

Evaluation Working Group and its effort to promote evaluation 

in public health. Specific information on this website includes an 

overview of the working group, highlights of CDC’s framework for 

program evaluation, and additional resources that may help when 

applying the framework. 

2. Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health 

www.cdc.gov/eval/framework.htm
 

This website outlines CDC’s evaluation framework.
 

3. Introduction to Program Evaluation for Public Health Programs: 

A Self-Study Guide 

www.cdc.gov/eval/evalguide.pdf 

This document is a “how to” guide for planning and implementing 

evaluation activities. The manual is based on CDC’s Framework 

for Program Evaluation in Public Health and is intended to assist 

state, local, and community managers and staff of public health 

programs in planning, designing, implementing, and using the 

results of comprehensive evaluations in a practical way. The 

strategy presented in this manual will help ensure that evaluations 

meet the diverse needs of internal and external stakeholders, 

including assessing and documenting implementation, outcomes, 

efficiency, and cost-effectiveness, and taking action based on 

evaluation results to increase impact. 

4. Practical Evaluation for Public Health Programs 

www.cdc.gov/eval/evalguide.pdf 

Designed for non-statisticians, this course will enable participants 

to learn 1) why evaluation and building commitment for it are 

important; and 2) how to design and conduct practical and 

effective evaluation in a team environment. Learners will be 

introduced to and work through the CDC evaluation framework. 

Community Tool Box 

http://ctb.ku.edu 

This website offers resources related to program planning and 

evaluation, suitable for community groups and others. 

David Fetterman 

www.stanford.edu/~davidf/empowermentevaluation.html 

This webste includes information and links relevant to 

empowerment evaluation. 

Evaluation Exchange 

www.gse.harvard.edu/hfrp/eval/issue27/index.html 

This website features an online evaluation journal. 

Getting To Outcomes 2004 

www.rand.org/publications/TR/TR101/
 

This website contains a manual providing a 10-step framework 


for planning, implementing, and evaluating prevention programs. 


Although the manual is geared to substance abuse prevention, but 


the framework can be applied to any type of prevention.
 

73
Empowerment Evaluation 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Campbell, R., Dorey, H., Naegeli, M., Grubstein, L. K., Bennett, K. K., & Bonter, F., et al. (2004). An empowerment evaluation model for 

sexual assault programs: Empirical evidence of effectiveness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 251–262. 

Cousins, J. B., & Whitmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. New Directions for Evaluation, 80, 5–23. 

Fetterman, D. M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S., & Wandersman, A. (Eds.). (1996). Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and 

accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Fetterman, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice. New York: Guilford Press. 

Fetterman, D. M, & Wandersman, A. (2007). Empowerment evaluation: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. American Journal of Evaluation, 

28, 179–198. 

Linney, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Empowering community groups with evaluation skills: The Prevention Plus III Model. In 

D. Fetterman, S. Kaftarian, & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation: Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and 

accountability (pp. 259–276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 

Livet, M., & Wandersman, A. (2005). Organizational functioning: Facilitating effective interventions and increasing the odds of 

programming success. In D. M. Fetterman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Empowerment evaluation principles in practice (pp. 123–154). 

New York: Guilford Press. 

Miller, R. L. (2005). Empowerment evaluation principles in practice, edited by David M.Fetterman and Abraham Wandersman, reviewed by 

Robin L. Miller. Evaluation and Program Planning, 28, 317–319. 

Miller, R. L., & Campbell, R. (2006). Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation, 27(9), 

296–319. 

Schnoes, C. J., Murphy-Berman, V., & Chambers, J. M. (2000). Empowerment evaluation applied: Experiences, analysis, and 

recommendations from a case study. American Journal of Evaluation, 21(1), 53–64. 

Scriven, M. (1997). Empowerment evaluation examined. Evaluation Practice, 18(2), 165–175. 

Stockdill, S. H., Baizerman, M., & Compton, D. W. (2002). Toward a definition of the ECB process: A conversation with the ECB literature. New 

Directions for Evaluation, 93, 7–25. 

Wandersman, A., & Snell-Johns, J. (2005). Empowerment evaluation: Clarity, dialogue, and growth. American Journal of Evaluation, 26(3), 

421–428. 

Zimmerman, K., & Erbstein, N. (1999). Promising practices: Youth empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Exchange, 5(1). 

74
 

Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator 

Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an 

Empowerment Evaluator 

This appendix contains 12 worksheets to help your organization worksheets, look back at the step and page referenced below 

work through the process of hiring an empowerment evaluator. regarding where the worksheet was discussed in a particular step 

Each worksheet can be tailored to fit the needs of your organization and where it can be found in the Appendix. 

and/or hiring process. For more information about each of these 

Discussed Found in Worksheets Specifically Tailored to the Seven-Step Process Appendix 

on Page 

on Page 

Step 1—Worksheet 1. Resources for Empowerment Evaluation........................................................................26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
 

Step 1—Worksheet 2. Hiring Committee Checklist.....................................................................................................27. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
 

Step 1—Worksheet 3. Tracking Progress for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator...................................29. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
 

Step 2—Worksheet 4. Defining Job Responsibilities and Deliverables..........................................................32. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
 

Step 2—Worksheet 5. Defining Qualifications of the Position............................................................................34. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
 

Step 4—Worksheet 6. Resume Review...............................................................................................................................45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
 

Step 4—Worksheet 7. Interview Plan............................................................................................................................... ... 45. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
 

Step 4—Worksheet 8. Interview Performance Rating..............................................................................................49. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
 

Step 4—Worksheet 9. Writing Sample Review..............................................................................................................50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
 

Step 4—Worksheet 10. Candidate Summary..................................................................................................................50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
 

Step 4—Worksheet 11. Candidate Ranking.....................................................................................................................50. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
 

Step 7—Worksheet 12. Empowerment Evaluation Principles Role Assessment.....................................65. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
 

75
Worksheet 1. Resources for Empowerment Evaluation 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Resources for empowerment evaluation are not limited to funding. 

Also take into account the knowledge, attitudes, skills, experience, 

and time available within your existing staff. Consider those who 

have previous experience with evaluation, data entry skills, survey 

administration skills, etc. Take stock of supplies and equipment 

that may be needed for evaluation activities, such as computers, 

software, printers, copiers, etc. 

Funding for evaluation usually comes from grants that support the 

development, implementation, and/or evaluation of a particular 

strategy. Many federal grants now suggest or require that a 

percentage of the funds be used for evaluation; some grants also 

specify a minimum and maximum percentage of funds to be spent 

on evaluation. List the financial resources you have available for 

building the evaluation capacity of your organization and for 

evaluating specific strategies. As noted in Table 4 on page 21, Role 

of the Funder in an Empowerment Evaluation, ideally funders 

would provide not only money, but also moral support, tangible 

guidance, and active engagement in building evaluation capacity 

within an organization and in evaluating any specific strategies. 

An example of a completed worksheet appears on the next page. 

Staff knowledge, attitudes, skills, experience, and time 


Financial resources 

Can be used to build organizational evaluation capacity in general: 

Must be used only to evaluate a specific strategy: 

Supplies and materials 


Contextual Resources (e.g., local university, existing partnerships) 


76
Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator 

Example: 

Worksheet 1. Resources for Empowerment Evaluation
 

Staff knowledge, attitudes, skills, experience, and time 

1.	 Program coordinator has data entry skills. She has used these skills to develop reports to all funders, following each funder’s unique 

format. She understands how to conduct a quality check to ensure that the data were accurately entered in the database. 

2.	 Program coordinator and manager have analytical skills. Each month, these two staff members review reports going to funders to 

assess the progress of the strategies funded. Through their efforts, several key actions have been taken over the past year to improve 

strategy implementation, recruiting efforts, and community mobilization efforts. 

3.	 Various staff members have voiced enthusiasm about being able to know if their strategies are working and being able to report that 

to funders and the community. 

4.	 Funding from the EZ Pillar Foundation will allow both the program coordinator and program manager to devote 15% (6 hours) of their 

time each week to empowerment evaluation activities. 

Financial resources 

Can be used to build organizational evaluation capacity in general: 

1.	 Alota Mulla Foundation: 5% of annual grant ($5,000) 

2.	 EZ Pillar Foundation: 10% of annual grant ($25,000) 

3. United Way: 5% of annual award ($10,000) 

Must be used only to evaluate a specific strategy: 

4.	 State Department of Health: 5% of annual award ($20,000) 

Supplies and materials 

1.	 Donated computer and printer from XYZ Corporation 

2.	 Donated software from Office Warehouse 

3.	 Office space for empowerment evaluator – 2 days a week 

Contextual Resources (e.g., local university, existing partnerships) 

1.	 Statistics professor at local university has offered to provide, at no cost, a student intern for 10 hours per week to assist in data 

collection, entry, and analysis and to personally assist in developing process and outcome measures for the strategy to be evaluated. 

2.	 Local organization that has used an empowerment evaluator previously has offered to share training and technical assistance 

materials used by their empowerment evaluator to reduce the resources needed to develop materials for this organization. 

3.	 Local evaluation association has offered to do a presentation on the various types of evaluation and what organizational evaluation 

capacity is and how it is developed. 

4.	 State sexual assault coalition has used an empowerment evaluation approach and is available to provide feedback, encouragement, 

and support to the organization. The coalition has offered to have quarterly conference calls to help address any issues that may arise. 

As not many organizations have worked to build their own evaluation capacity, the state sexual assault coalition hopes to offer a 

normative perspective of the rewards and challenges of this approach. 

77
Worksheet 2. Hiring Committee Checklist 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Our hiring committee includes:
 

❏	 The executive director or program manager of our organization (or someone in another leadership position). 

(Name)_________________________________________________________________________ 

❏	 The staff member who will directly supervise the work of the evaluator. 

(Name)_________________________________________________________________________ 

❏	 A staff member who has responsibility for and leadership over the programs/strategies being addressed 

by the empowerment evaluation (if applicable). 

(Name)_________________________________________________________________________ 

❏	 A front-line staff member who implements the program/strategy that will be evaluated (if applicable). 

(Name)_________________________________________________________________________ 

❏	 A representative of partner organizations or local organizations that will be working with our 


empowerment evaluator (if applicable). 


(Name)_________________________________________________________________________ 

❏	 An individual with evaluation knowledge and experience (internal or external to organization). 

(Name)_________________________________________________________________________ 

❏	 Other (Please list): 

❏	 All members of our hiring committee have signed a confidentiality agreement to protect the privacy of our applicants. 

An example of a confidentiality agreement is in Appendix C, on page 89. 78
 

 

 

 

Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator 

Worksheet 3. Tracking Progress for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator
 

Plan to complete this task 

Key tasks 

for hiring What needs to be done? Who will do it? 

Target 

date 

Date 

done 

Form hiring 

committee 

Write job 

announcement 

(see Appendix D on page 

90 for example) 

Post job 

announcement 

Identify and 

contact potential 

candidates 

Review resumes 

and select 

candidates for 

interviews 

Conduct 

interviews of 

top candidates 

Request and 

review work 

samples from top 

candidates 

Conduct a meet 

and greet of top 

candidates 

Check references 

of select 

candidates 

Select candidate 

and make a 

job offer 

Develop and sign 

an evaluation 

contract 

with chosen 

empowerment 

evaluator 

79
Worksheet 4. Defining Job Responsibilities and Deliverables 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Our empowerment evaluator will have responsibilities related to the following grants or funding sources... 

Responsibilities in building evaluation capacity will include... 

Our empowerment evaluator will assist in completing the following reporting requirements... 

Facilitation responsibilities will include . . . 

Travel requirements will include... 

Our empowerment evaluator will help us establish the following ongoing evaluation processes... 

Other... 

80
Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator 

Worksheet 5. Defining Qualifications of the Position 


Qualification 

Area 

Minimum 

qualifications 

Preferred 

qualifications 

Education/ 

training 

Previous work 

experience 

Orientation to 

evaluation 

Facilitation 

skills 

Communication 

and 

interpersonal 

skills 

Other 

qualifications 

Other 

considerations 

81
 

 

 

 

 

Worksheet 6. Resume Review10 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Rating
 

Qualifications11 

0 

Not 

Sure 

1 

Does not 

meet 

minimum 

requirements 

2 

Meets 

minimum 

requirements 

3 

Exceeds 

minimum 

requirements 

Educational/training background 

(Minimum requirement: Masters Degree) 

Course work in statistics and research methods 

(Minimum requirement: 12 hours of statistics and research 

methods) 

Previous professional evaluation experience 

(Minimum requirement: 2 years of participatory/communitybased evaluation) 

Orientation to evaluation 

(Minimum requirement: Views evaluation as a tool for strategy 

improvement and is enthusiastic about using an empowerment 

evaluation approach) 

Facilitation Skills 

(Minimum requirement: is developing the ability to facilitate 

a group decision-making process in accordance with the 10 

empowerment evaluation principles) 

Communication skills 

(Minimum requirement: Strong verbal and written 

communication skills) 

Experience working with violence prevention 

organizations. 

(Minimum requirement: 2 years) 

Experience working with organizations 

focused on prevention. 

(Minimum requirement: 2 years) 

Experience working with diverse community coalitions 

and/or collaborative partnerships 

(Minimum requirement: 2 years) 

Experience conducting training with adult learners 

(Minimum requirement: 2 years) 

Note additional comments on back of worksheet... 

Based on review of resume, this candidate: ❏Exceeds / ❏Meets / ❏Does not meet minimum qualification requirements 

Total Score __________ Request an interview? ❏Yes ❏No 

10 Adapted from a form developed by the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 

11 82 See Table 8. Suggested Qualifications for an Empowerment Evaluator on page 35. 
Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator 

Worksheet 7. Interview Plan
 

Who will conduct the interviews? 

How many candidates will you interview? 

How and when will interviews be scheduled? 

What questions will be asked? 

Will there be additional aspects to the interview other than questions and answers? 

Will a mock interview be conducted before the actual candidates are interviewed? 

83
Worksheet 8. Interview Performance Rating12 

Candidate Date: Interviewer: 

Interview Question / Task Rating 1–4: 1 = marginal, 4 = excellent Comments 

1. (Example) What about this position is most attractive toyou? What do you believe will be most challenging about the position for you? (insight / fit / interest in the position)2.3.4.5.Observational RatingsPunctualitySense of confidenceVerbal communication skillsRelates comfortably with othersDemonstrates understanding and value ofempowerment evaluation principlesthroughout responsesOther: 

12 Adapted from the North Dakota Council on Abused Women’s Servi

84
 

Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator 

Worksheet 9. Writing Sample Review13 

Candidate ___________________________________ Reviewer: ___________________________________ 

What was candidate’s role in writing report? 

❏ Lead 

❏ Assist Rating 

❏ Part of Team 

Quality of Writing Sample 

0 

Not 

Sure 

1 

Poor/ 

Nones 

2 

Fairs 

3 

Goods 

4 

Great 

5 

Super 

Writing skills 

Report is engaging, clear, and easy to read; writing style is professional; 

grammar and spelling are correct. 

Organization 

Report is organized in sections with clear and logical headings; table of 

contents and appendices are included; report is visually pleasing and easy to 

follow. 

Substance/Content 

The report provides meaningful information and recommendations; terms and 

concepts are well defined (low use of jargon); a take-home message is evident 

in the report. 

Methodology 

Report describes an appropriate evaluation design, data collection methods, 

data analysis, and interpretation of results; report is methodologically accurate. 

Comments: 

13 Adapted from Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence. 85
Worksheet 10. Candidate Summary


Candidate:

Phone: E-mail: Education Level: Field of Study: 

Source of Information 

Qualification 

Resume

(Total score) 

Interview

(Total score) 

Work 

Sample

(Total score) 

References

(Total score) 

General evaluation (knowledge, skills, ability)Empowerment evaluation (knowledge, skills, ability, inclination)Violence prevention Specify area: ____________ (knowledge and commitment)Communication skills(Verbal and written)Work ethicInterpersonal skillsOther 

Total Score: 

86
Appendix B: Worksheets for Hiring an Empowerment Evaluator 

Worksheet 11. Candidate Ranking 

Candidate Finalists Total Score Rank 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

87
 

Worksheet 12. Empowerment Evaluation Principles Role Assessment14 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Rate the extent to which each participant of your evaluation 1 = Work is not at all consistent with the principle 

process is working consistently with each of the empowerment 3 = Work is somewhat consistent with the principle 

evaluation principles 5 = Work is fully consistent with the principle 

Role Description Rating
 Participant Am I... Low High 

Evaluator 1. serving as a coach rather than a controller of the evaluation? 

(community ownership) 1 2 3 4 5 

2. helping the organization internalize the goals, processes, and desired outcomes of its 

programs and strategies? (improvement) 1 2 3 4 5 

3. supporting the use of organizational and community knowledge in building 

evaluation capacity and evaluating specific strategies? 

(community knowledge) 

1 2 3 4 5 

4. providing training and technical assistance to the organization to help build the 

organization’s evaluation capacity? (capacity building) 1 2 3 4 5 

5. helping the organization interpret and use data to inform decision making and 

to make evaluation part of the planning and management of the organization? 

(organizational learning) 

1 2 3 4 5 

Average Rating: 

Organization 1. working closely with the evaluator and using the evaluation process to improve our 

organization’s evaluation capacity and performance? (improvement) 1 2 3 4 5 

2. assuming responsibility for the oversight and direction of the evaluation capacitybuilding process and evaluations of specific strategies? (community ownership) 1 2 3 4 5 

3. facilitating an environment in which the voices of all stakeholders are equally valued, 

shared, and heard? (democratic participation) 1 2 3 4 5 

4. using my knowledge of community context, demographics, and conditions to choose 

prevention goals and strategies and to interpret evaluation findings? (community 

knowledge) 

1 2 3 4 5 

5. creating an organizational climate that is conducive to institutionalizing and learning 

from evaluation? (organizational learning) 1 2 3 4 5 

Average Rating: 

Funder 1. providing the financial support needed for intensive individual and organizational 

evaluation capacity building and evaluation? (improvement) 1 2 3 4 5 

2. respecting the autonomy of the organization? (community ownership) 1 2 3 4 5 

3. working with the organization to measure and report the results of the capacitybuilding efforts and to use evaluation results to improve strategies? (accountability) 1 2 3 4 5 

4. recognizing and validating the use of organizational and community knowledge in 

planning and evaluation? (community knowledge) 1 2 3 4 5 

5. encouraging the adaptation of evidence-based strategies to the local community 

context and conditions when appropriate? (evidence-based strategies) 1 2 3 4 5 

Average Rating: 

14 88 See Tables 2-4 on pages 18-21 that describe the roles of the organization, evaluator and funder in Empowerment Evaluation. 
 

 

Appendix C: Sample Hiring Committee Confidentiality Statement 

Appendix C: Sample Hiring Committee 

Confidentiality Statement15 

Empowerment Evaluator Search 

As an individual involved in the search for an empowerment evaluator for [organization], I recognize and accept 

my responsibility to protect the confidentiality of every prospect and candidate, the search process itself, and the 

deliberations of the search committee. 

To the degree that I will have access to confidential information and materials related to the search, and with full 

knowledge of the critical importance of confidentiality to the integrity and success of the search process, I hereby 

agree: 

1. The deliberations of the hiring committee and any and all information relating to such deliberations, and all 

documents relating to the search and the work of the hiring committee are confidential. 

2. Hiring committee chair [name] may disclose the process and status of the hiring committee’s work to the public as 

appropriate. 

3. I will not, unless otherwise directed or approved by the committee, disclose confidential information to any person 

or entity, other than a hiring committee member or a person otherwise designated by the committee chair, or as 

may be required pursuant to any court order. However, I may disclose information about the process and status of the 

hiring committee’s work which has been disclosed by the committee chair. 

4. Requests for information related to the selection and appointment of an empowerment evaluator for [organization] 

should be directed to the chair of the hiring committee. 

5. The obligation to maintain confidentiality described within these paragraphs exists both during the period that the 

search is active and to a reasonable time thereafter as determined by the chair. The retention of search records shall be 

in compliance with institutional and any applicable legal guidelines, and the disposition of records in a manner that 

retains candidate confidentiality. 

6. Within 30 days of the conclusion of the work of the hiring committee, I will transfer all related files and all 

confidential information in my possession to the hiring committee chair for appropriate retention as part of the official 

records of the hiring committee. 

I have read, understand, and agree to abide by all of the terms of this agreement as a condition of my service to the 

[organization] in its search for an empowerment evaluator. 

Signature 

Date 

15 Adapted from Ohio Domestic Violence Network 89
 

 

Appendix D: Sample Job Announcement16 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Metropolitan Area Women’s Center 

Job Announcement 

Job Title: Empowerment Evaluator 

Type of Position: Part-time; contract position 

Background: 

The mission of the Metropolitan Area Women’s Center (MAWC) is 

to eliminate domestic violence and sexual violence by changing 

societal attitudes, practices, and policies that support these types 

of violence through education, activism, advocacy, counseling, 

emergency shelter services, collaboration and partnerships. 

MAWC has received funding from the Alota Mulla Foundation to 

implement and evaluate a by-stander strategy for preventing 

intimate partner and sexual violence among teenagers. 

Summary of Position: 

The empowerment evaluation consultant will assist MAWC in 

building its organizational capacity to implement and evaluate a 

by-stander strategy for preventing intimate partner and sexual 

violence among teenagers. The empowerment evaluator will 

provide tools, training and technical assistance to MAWC staff and 

stakeholders in: 

1.	 conducting a needs assessment to identify the area middleschool most appropriate to receive the by-stander strategy, 

2.	 assessing the by-stander strategy’s design to ensure that it is 

based on sound behavioral change principles and theory as 

well as compatible with the school’s implementation context, 

3.	 conducting a process evaluation, and 

4.	 conducting an outcome evaluation, 

The empowerment evaluator will also provide recommendations on 

how to increase organizational evaluation capacity throughout the 

term of the contract with MAWC. The empowerment evaluator will 

not be independently conducting an evaluation of the by-stander 

strategy, but supporting MAWC staff in improving their ability to 

implement and evaluate the by-stander strategy so that it is better 

able to achieve its stated goals and objectives. 

Desired Qualifications: 

z Minimum: M.A. degree in public health, psychology, social work, 

or related field. 

z Preferred: Ph.D. degree in public health, psychology, social work, 

or related field. 

z A minimum of 3 years (5 years preferred) of evaluation 

experience, preferably with specific experience working with 

organizations committed to ending violence against women 

and/or working with organizations focused on prevention, 

z Course work in statistics and research methods and proficiency in 

using statistical database software. 

z Knowledge of assessment techniques including survey, 

interview, observations, and focus groups. 

z Excellent oral and written communication skills, with experience 

training adults. 

z Congenial personality and ability to form strong working 

relationships with many diverse groups. 

Job Responsibilities: 

z Work from an empowerment evaluation framework. 

z Travel to three trainings per year organized by the Alota Mulla 

Foundation, the funder of the by-stander program. 

z Facilitate the development of an implementation plan for the bystander strategy based on a needs assessment and assessment 

of the strategy’s design by providing tools, training and technical 

assistance to MAWC staff members and key stakeholders, 

z Facilitate the development of an evaluation plan for the 

by-stander strategy that includes both process and outcome 

evaluation activities by providing tools, training and technical 

assistance to MAWC staff members and key stakeholders, 

z Coach MAWC staff members and key stakeholders as they 

implement and evaluate the by-stander strategy. 

z Provide recommendations on how to increase organizational 

evaluation capacity throughout the term of the contract with 

MAWC. 

How to Apply: 

E-mail a letter of interest and your resume or vita to Jane Doe at 

[e-mail] by November 1, 2009. Call [phone] with questions. 

16 Adapted from samples used by various DELTA and EMPOWER Program grantees. 90
Appendix E: Sample Request for Proposals 

Appendix E:
 

Sample Request For Proposals17
 

Request for Proposal (RFP) 

Anystate Department of Health 

Funding available for an empowerment evaluator to join 

state intimate partner and sexual violence prevention team in 

supporting five local organizations in implementing and evaluating 

a by-stander strategy intended to prevent violence against women 

A. Statement of Purpose 

The Anystate Department of Health announces the availability 

of funds to hire an empowerment evaluator to work with the 

state intimate partner and sexual violence prevention team in 

supporting five local organizations in implementing and evaluating 

a by-stander strategy that is intended to prevent violence against 

women. 

B. Background 

The Anystate Department of Health has formed a partnership 

with the Anystate Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Anystate 

Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and the Governor’s Advisory 

Council Against Domestic and Sexual Violence to address the issue 

of intimate partner and sexual violence prevention in Anystate. 

This partnership developed a statewide strategic plan that 

focuses on the primary prevention of intimate partner and sexual 

violence. One aspect of this plan calls for the implementation and 

evaluation of a by-stander strategy intended to prevent violence 

against women in five local communities. Five local organizations 

that address intimate partner and/or sexual violence have been 

selected to implement and evaluate the same by-stander strategy. 

The empowerment evaluator will be supporting these local 

organizations in their implementation and evaluation efforts 

related to this by-stander strategy. The evaluator will not be 

conducting an independent evaluation of the by-stander strategy. 

The empowerment evaluator will focus on building the evaluation 

capacity of the local organizations and their staff in: 

1.	 conducting a needs assessment to identify the area middleschool most appropriate to receive the by-stander strategy, 

2.	 assessing the by-stander strategy’s design to ensure that it is 

based on sound behavioral change principles and theory as 

well as compatible with the school’s implementation context, 

3.	 conducting a process evaluation, and 

4.	 conducting an outcome evaluation, 

The empowerment evaluator will also provide recommendations on 

how to increase the organizational evaluation capacity of these five 

local organizations and how the state intimate partner and sexual 

violence prevention team can better support the evaluation efforts 

of these local organizations throughout the term of the contract. 

C. Applicant Eligibility 

z Minimum: M.A. degree in public health, psychology, evaluation, 

or related field. 

z Preferred: Ph.D. degree in public health, psychology, evaluation, 

or related field. 

z A minimum of 3 years (5 years preferred) of evaluation 

experience, preferably with specific experience working with 

domestic violence and sexual violence organizations, and/ 

or working with organizations focused on prevention, and/ 

or working with community coalitions and/or collaborative 

partnerships. 

z Course work in statistics and research methods and proficiency in 

using statistical database software. 

z Knowledge of assessment techniques including survey, 

interview, observations, and focus groups. 

z Excellent oral and written communication skills, with experience 

training adults. 

z Congenial personality and ability to form strong working 

relationships with many diverse groups. 

D. Funding Information 

Approximately $[amount] per year for 3 years for a part-time 

contract position. The 3-year funding and project period will begin 

in [month, year]. Travel, hotel, and per diem costs associated with 

required technical assistance trainings will be covered. 

17 Adapted from New Jersey Department of Community Affairs 91
E. Evaluator Responsibilities F. Proposal Requirements 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

z Work from an empowerment evaluation framework. 

z Travel to three trainings per year organized by the Anystate 

Department of Health, the funder of the by-stander strategy. 

z Facilitate the development of separate implementation plans 

for the by-stander strategy for each local organization based 

on a needs assessment and assessment of the strategy’s design 

by providing tools, training and technical assistance to local 

organization staff members and key stakeholders, 

z Facilitate the development of separate evaluation plans for the 

by-stander strategy for each local organization that includes 

both process and outcome evaluation activities by providing 

tools, training and technical assistance to local organization staff 

members and key stakeholders, 

z Coach local organization staff members and key stakeholders as 

they implement and evaluate the by-stander strategy. 

z Provide recommendations on how to increase organizational 

evaluation capacity of these five local organizations and how the 

state intimate partner and sexual violence prevention team can 

better support the evaluation efforts of these local organizations 

throughout the term of the contract. 

Describe how you will assist the state prevention team in 

supporting five local organizations in implementing and evaluating 

a by-stander strategy that is intended to prevent violence against 

women, paying special attention to how you will incorporate the 10 

principles of empowerment evaluation into your tools, training and 

technical assistance. Include a proposed timeline and budget for 

the first year of project. 

G. Review Process 

1.	 Proposals received by the deadline will be reviewed by 

members of the intimate partner and sexual violence 

prevention team. 

2.	 Interviews will be conducted the week of January 16, 2010. 

3.	 Selection will be made by January 30, 2010. 

H. Submission of Proposal 

Interested individuals may e-mail or mail a letter of interest, 

proposal, and resume or vita to Mark Noname no later than 

4:00PM, Friday, [month], [year]. 

E-mail: [e-mail address]
 

Address: [Name], Director of Public Education
 

[State] Department of Health [Address]
 

For more information call [name] at [phone number].
 

92
Appendix F: Sample Interview Questions 

Appendix F: Sample Interview Questions18
 

Questions About 

Evaluation Orientation and/or 

Empowerment Evaluation 

z How would you describe your evaluation approach or 

orientation? 

z What is your familiarity with empowerment evaluation? Have 

you ever done empowerment evaluation or participatory 

evaluation? If so, what were the challenges, successes, and 

lessons learned from your experience? 

z This organization is looking for an evaluator who will assist in 

building organizational evaluation capacity through an approach 

called empowerment evaluation. Is this something you are 

willing and able to do? 

z What does coaching an evaluation team within the organization 

mean to you? What are your expectations of the organization? 

What would be the first hint that this organization is not 

meeting your expectations regarding how empowerment 

evaluation should be done? 

z How does empowerment evaluation compare with the way you 

normally work? What would you need to do differently to do 

empowerment evaluation? 

z What is the fundamental difference between empowerment 

evaluation and other approaches to evaluation? 

z Do you think process evaluation is important? Why or why not? 

z Describe an example of how your evaluation findings were used 

to improve a strategy. 

z What are your professional strengths as an empowerment 

evaluator? What are your professional challenges? 

Questions Related to Fees 

What is your fee structure or schedule? Is it negotiable? If so, what 

parts (i.e., indirect rate or hourly rate)? 

z Do you prefer a fixed-fee contract or a time and materials 

contract? 

z How do you normally get reimbursed for travel? Do you charge 

for travel time? Do you have a minimum daily per diem? 

Questions Related to the Position 

Being Offered 

z When you read the job description for this position, what 

appealed to you most about the position? 

z If offered this position, what challenges do you expect to face? 

z What previous work experience do you have as an evaluator that 

is particularly relevant or similar to the position this organization 

has available? 

z Are you able to devote the necessary hours per week or days per 

month for this project? 

z Are you able and willing to travel for this position? 

Questions about Cultural 

Competence 

z Describe your experiences working with culturally and racially 

diverse groups. 

z What is your definition of cultural competence? How does 

your definition go beyond language translation? 

z Describe cross-cultural communication models or techniques to 

collaborate with communities to understand and address their 

needs through evaluation. 

z What are some barriers you’ve experienced in integrating 

diversity issues into evaluation? How have you addressed them? 

z What measures would you take to minimize or eliminate 

marginalization through the evaluation process? 

z How do you promote cultural competence in your work, even 

when it may limit the rigor of the evaluation process? 

18 Developed and used by various DELTA and EMPOWER Program grantees. 93
Questions About Negotiating Questions When Interviewing 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Challenges, Facilitating 

Collaboration, and Building Capacity 

Among Community Groups 

z How would you promote stakeholder buy-in of empowerment 

evaluation on this project? 

z What experience do you have training adults? Providing 

technical assistance to adults? 

z Hypothetical scenario: You’ve met with all the local community 

groups a few times now, and you have noticed that at one site in 

particular, there is a lack of investment in the evaluation process. 

Several key team members have been absent from meetings and 

during the meetings, participants are often distracted with other 

crises, or they seem anxious and preoccupied with completing 

the required reports and paperwork for the evaluation, and show 

little interest in the process for genuine reflection and learning. 

What would you do in this situation? 

z Hypothetical scenario: While working with the statewide 

steering committee at their regular meeting, it becomes clear 

that two members are challenging the chairs and the group and 

promoting philosophical conflict about use of gender-based 

issues. How would approach this situation? 

an Evaluation Team (Firms/ 

Organizations or University-Based) 

z Briefly describe the history, mission, and focus of your 

organization/firm. Please highlight a couple of relevant 

accomplishments. 

z Describe your team structure. How is work distributed? Is there a 

team leader? 

z Describe the experience and background of each person on the 

team. 

z How much time is each person on your team available to work 

on the project (hours per week)? Will availability change over 

time? 

z What about this contract do you think would challenge you 

or your organization or team? What strengths does your team 

possess that would help you manage the contract? 

z How does your organization or team prioritize work among 

competing projects? Will team members be working on multiple 

projects? 

z Will graduate students be involved in the project? How will they 

be selected? Will they be involved throughout the whole project 

or come and go based on semester/course requirements? 

z How will graduate students be supervised? Who will monitor the 

quality and timeliness of their work? Will they be paid? 

z Give us some examples of how your team would cope with shifts 

in priority among projects. For example, if you have five requests 

for technical assistance in one week, how would your team 

prioritize needs and feasibility of response? 

z Describe the management structure for ensuring that 

deliverables are submitted on time and of sufficient quality. 

94
Appendix G: Sample Budget and Narrative for an Evaluation Team 

Appendix G: Sample Budget and
 

Narrative for an Evaluation Team19
 

Year 1 Budget 

Percentage of Time 

Devoted to Project Budget 

Personnel 

Salary and Wages—Faculty

 Project Coordinator 10% $4,488

 Evaluation Analyst 20% $9,117

 Evaluation Assistant 50% $26,330

 Admin. Support 8% $2,897

 Business Office Support 5% $2,015 

Total Salary $44,847

 Fringe Benefits (35%) – see narrative for description $15,696 

Total Salary & Fringe Benefits $60,543 

Operating 

Travel $7,650

 in-state: 21 trips, 1 person $4,784

 in-state: 3 trips to Capital City x 4 people $1,866

 evaluation training conference, 1 person $1,000 

Communications $420

 postage, telecommunications $420 

Office Supplies $1,425

 duplicating, printing, supplies including $300

 50 evaluation binders @ $22.50 ea $1,125 

Other $1,710

 annual evaluation workshop $1,710 

Total Operating $11,205 

Subtotal $71,748
 

Indirect Rate (9%) $6,457
 

Total Costs Requested $78,205
 

19 Adapted from the North Dakota Council on Abused Women’s Services/Coalitions Against Sexual Assault. 

95
C. Travel 

Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

Budget Justification
 

A. Personnel 

Funds in the amount of $44,847 are requested to support University 

of Our State (UOS) salaries as listed below. Funds in the amount of 

$15,696 are requested to support fringe benefits. Fringe benefits 

are based on historical data and estimated at 35 percent for faculty 

and staff; the actual cost of benefits will be charged to the grant. 

Project Coordinator will provide overall leadership and guidance 

for the project including overseeing the implementation of all 

project-related activity. She will act as the lead on conference calls 

and meetings with partner organizations and at training events. 

She will be responsible for disseminating all written products at the 

conclusion of the project. She will provide 10% effort to the project. 

Evaluation Analyst will implement the empowerment evaluation 

component of the project, overseeing all other team member’s 

evaluation activities. He will provide in-house training to colleagues 

as needed and act as the lead analyst. He will participate in team 

meetings and conference calls and attend evaluator trainings. He 

will provide 20% effort to the project. 

Evaluation Assistant will implement the empowerment 

evaluation model with assigned communities. This position will 

assist with the overall project as needed, including attendance at 

meetings, travel to communities, workshop training, and tracking 

efforts. This position will be filled by the start of the project and will 

provide 70% effort to the project. 

Administrative Support will provide support services to the 

project including scheduling of meetings and conference calls, 

travel arrangements, document production, duplication of project 

materials, dissemination of information, and other project-specific 

tasks as assigned. Administrative support, garnered from current 

UOS staff, will provide 8% effort to the project. 

Business Office Support will monitor the budget and 

process reimbursement requests as needed. Business office 

support, garnered from current UOS staff, will provide 5% 

effort to the project. 

Fringe Benefits include life insurance 3%, OASDI (Social Security) 

7%, Medicare 3%, unemployment insurance 3%, health care 

insurance14%, and 401(k) contribution 5%. 

B. Equipment 

Not anticipated. 

Funds in the amount of $4,784 are requested for three site visits 

travel to each of the 21 grantee locations (1 person). Funds in the 

amount of $1,866 are requested for travel to Capital City for four 

people to attend three statewide trainings for grantees. Additional 

travel funding in the amount of $1,000 is requested for an 

evaluation team member to attend evaluation training projected to 

be held in Capital City. 

D. Communications 

Funds in the amount of $420 are requested for postage and 

telecommunication costs. 

E. Supplies 

Funds in the amount of $1,425 are requested for project-specific 

supplies. This includes paper, toner, and other necessary small 

desk supplies as well as the cost of duplication, which will consist 

primarily of grantee binders including evaluation materials. 

F. Other Costs 

Funds in the amount of $1,710 are requested for other costs, 

including those associated with statewide training including 

meeting room, breaks, lunch, and speaker fees. 

G. Total Direct Costs 

$71,747 

H. Indirect Costs 

UOS’s federally approved indirect cost rate for non-research projects 

is 30%. The funding organization limits indirect costs to 9%. Funds 

in the amount of $6,457 are requested for indirect costs. 

This project will have access to video and audio teleconferencing, 

computer support services, educational technology support, multimedia presentation technology including web casting, medical 

library support, and electronic document management available to 

all projects based in the University of Our State. UOS supports this 

project by providing the necessary administrative structure (payroll, 

accounting services) as well as access to campus services (libraries, 

labs, meeting rooms). This project will be afforded full availability 

of the above-mentioned resources, as needed to achieve the 

objectives of this grant. 

I. Total Funds Requested 

$78,204 

96
Notes 

97
Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

98
Notes 

99
Evaluation for Improvement = Empowerment Evaluation 

100

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
 

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 

NOVEMBER 2009 

CS204075-A