PROGRAM

EVALUATION:

MEASURING

THE VALUE OF

ACTIVE AGING

PARTNERSHIP FOR

PREVENTION
Introduction

This report, intended for program planners, identifies

steps for evaluation and provides strategies for addressing

challenges in program assessment.

Evaluation, the process of determining a program’s utility or

direction, is critical to program planning, budgeting, and

management. Through evaluation, program planners can

ascertain how well components of their program are

functioning. Evaluation also provides clues as to why

components may work or not.

Evaluation aids program accountability. Managers often need

to determine whether their programs are having the intended

impact on participants and the community. Documenting a

program’s effect provides valuable information to decisionand policy-makers, such as program funders. 

Finally, evaluation can inform long-term strategic planning

for program managers, community leaders, and policymakers. Carefully documented results from an evaluation

provide guidance to similar programs and allow programs to

serve as models for other communities.

For the purposes of this document, the terms “program

manager” and “evaluator” are used interchangeably, on the

assumption that program managers can capably guide and

perform evaluations when funding is not sufficient to hire an

external evaluation team.

This guide to program evaluation is a companion to Creating Communities

for Active Aging. Managers and staff from active aging programs, as well as

other stakeholders, voiced a need for a detailed description of program

evaluation.

Creating Communities for Active Agingdescribes strategic planning for

creating active communities, from identifying audiences, to assessing

barriers and opportunities to physical activity, to developing strategies for

increasing the number of older adult walkers and cyclists. The catalogue of

strategies includes public policy changes, improved community design, and

information and education approaches.

A third report in the active aging series is From the Field: Four Communities

Implement Active Aging Programs, which describes communities’ efforts to

promote active aging and suggests tips for success.

All reports are published by Partnership for Prevention in collaboration

with the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration. They are available at www.prevent.org/activeaging.htm.

Creating Communities for Active Aging
1

Evaluation Overview

Program managers can use a variety of methods 

for evaluating programs, which yield different 

results and have different uses and purposes.

Evaluation design and scope dictate the required

resources. Several common types of evaluation are

described below.

Process evaluations assess the effectiveness of steps

taken to achieve desired program outcomes. Process

evaluation can occur throughout the project cycle

and can guide managers to make changes to

maximize effectiveness. Examples of process

measures are the number of ads shown in a media

campaign or the number of community partners. 

Output measures, commonly used in process

evaluations, help gauge a program’s processes; they

describe a program’s activities (e.g., how many older

adults participated in a walk or how many classes

were convened), rather than the ultimate effect of

the program (e.g., changes in health). Output

measures allow program managers to plan

appropriately for clients or classes. Program

planners can also use outputs to identify a need to

better tailor programs to a target population (for

example, if older adults are not joining a walking

group) or monitor changes in program outputs

(fewer older adults in the walking group 

than before). 

Outcome evaluations consider program goals to

determine if desired changes to attitudes, behavior,

or knowledge have been attained as a result of the

intervention. Outcome metrics are usually measured

at the beginning and end of a project cycle or

program. Examples of outcomes include positive

changes to health status or a quantifiable increase in

walking seniors.

Impact evaluations seek to isolate a program’s effect

on participants and communities, while filtering out

effects from other potential sources (e.g. weather,

other programs).1 Although impact evaluations

require a higher level of technical expertise, they are

considered the “gold standard” of evaluation.

Impact evaluations (known as “experimental” or

“quasi-experimental” studies) compare a group

receiving services against one that is not.

...Community outcomes are not visions or goals, but

specific changes or benefits that involved organizations

hold themselves accountable for influencing.

- “Achieving and Measuring Community Outcomes:

Challenges, Issues, and Some Approaches.

United Way of America, April 1999.

”

“

In Sacramento, California, program planners measured the

number of participants in walking groups as well as

walkers’ satisfaction. Although not a formal evaluation,

this basic assessment of program processes provided

managers with information indicating a need to modify

the program. Walkers told them that the group meeting

place affected their willingness to participate.

Sacramento’s process evaluation could be formalized to

include questionnaires, structured interviews, or surveys so

that each participant is assessed in the same manner and

data can be compared across individuals and groups.

Source: Partnership for Prevention (2002). From the Field:Four Communities

Implement Active Aging Programs.www.prevent.org/activeaging.htm

Process Evaluation
Who Conducts Program Evaluations?

Depending on the scope, design, and purpose of

program evaluations, a range of staff and researchers

can conduct them. For process-oriented, day-to-day

evaluation, program staff can collect and monitor

information on various program features and

collaborate with managers to analyze and interpret

data. This type of evaluation, sometimes referred to

as an internal evaluation, is conducted on a routine

basis to review objective aspects of a program.

For in-depth evaluations, the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends a team

approach.2 The team may include technical experts,

such as statisticians or epidemiologists; program

staff and management; stakeholders; and trusted

members of the community with no vested interest

in the outcome of the evaluation. Participation

from outside the program provides fresh insight and

increases the credibility of the evaluation. These

external evaluations often focus on the outcomes or

impact of a program.

Summary

Program managers can choose from an array of

evaluation designs, methods, and evaluators. If it is

not feasible for a program to undertake an external

evaluation, program managers and staff can learn a

great deal from regular program assessments.

Conducting any evaluation of a program – judging

the satisfaction of participants, the number of

classes held, or the impact – is better than no

evaluation. Program managers that do not assess

their direction, methods, or potential impact and

outcomes may have a limited understanding of their

program and may lack the data to justify the

program to funding agencies.

2

Recommended Framework for Program Evaluation

Steps

Engage

Stakeholder

Describe

the Program

Focus the 

Evaluation

Design 

Gather 

Credible

Evidence

Justify 

Conclutions

Ensure Use 

and Share 

Lessons Learned

Standards

Utility

Feasibility

Propriety

Accuracy

Largo, Florida’s active aging program managers will

measure blood pressure and pulse before and after the

intervention to determine the quantifiable effects of their

program on senior health. Largo is also building new

urban trails and could measure the number of people

walking in the community before and after the trails are

built. Managers could survey or count people using trails.

Businesses along the trails may measure increases in sales

or customer traffic before and after the trails are built.

Because bus routes will be connected to the trail system

and every bus is equipped with a bike rack, bus drivers

could survey passengers going to urban trails or using bike

racks. Evaluation should be done before and after the

trails’ completion.

These trends should be measured over time to assess

whether or not more outreach is necessary, if the 

trails are functioning well, or if other program changes 

are necessary.

Source: Partnership for Prevention (2002). From the Field: Four

Communities Implement Active Aging Programs.

www.prevent.org/activeaging.htm

Outcome Evaluation

Figure 1

Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Framework for Evaluation in Public Health.

MMWR 1999; 48(No. RR-11).
3

Program Evaluation Framework

The CDC recommends a series of steps for program

evaluation (Figure 1).3 This framework was developed

to enable program managers to effectively evaluate

community initiatives. The steps are as follows.

Engage stakeholders: During this step, evaluators ask

partners and stakeholders to provide input into

evaluation design and data analysis. Stakeholders

include those invested in the process, such as staff,

program managers, collaborators, the population

served, funding agencies, as well as policy- and

decision-makers. In addition to informing program

and evaluation efforts, stakeholders ensure that the

program meets the needs of the community and

target population and provides insight into political

issues that require consideration.

Describe the program: Evaluators next describe in

detail the mission, goals, objectives, and program

strategies. The description explains the needs

addressed by the program, the expected outcomes of

program activities and strategies, as well as available

resources. The program description provides an

explanation of a “logic model.” The description also

presents the program’s developmental stage – whether

it is a new or old program – which can affect the type

of measures considered. A newer program that has

been in the community for a short time will not have

discernable long-term effects, and evaluation

measures should reflect this. 

Finally, evaluators consider external factors that can

affect program success. Creating Communities for

Active Aging lists external factors that commonly

influence older adults’ walking practices.

Focus the evaluation design: Managers must choose

an evaluation methodology and measures to

accurately assess the process or outcomes of the

program while minimizing cost and time. To focus

the evaluation design, managers should articulate the

purpose of the evaluation, such as to improve the

program’s functioning (process evaluation) or to assess

An impact evaluation of the Wheeling, West Virginia media

campaign, Wheeling Walks, led program managers to

document a 30% increase in walking in the community as a

result of the campaign. The evaluation compared walking

rates in Wheeling before and after the campaign to rates in

a similar community without the intervention.

Source: Partnership for Prevention (2002). From the Field: Four

Communities Implement Active Aging Programs.

www.prevent.org/activeaging.htm.

Impact Evaluation
4

the effectiveness of the intervention (outcome or

impact evaluation). Managers should also define the

ultimate users (audiences). Methods should be

directly connected to the planned use of data.

The next step is to design the evaluation

methodology. Methods can include questionnaires or

surveys, quasi-experimental studies, and structured

qualitative interviews.

■ Questionnaires or surveys can be distributed to

program participants or other stakeholders before,

during, and after the program to assess changes in

attitudes, behaviors, or knowledge (such as use of

new sidewalks, experiences in program, etc.)

Managers of a walking initiative in Nashville,

Tennessee distributed a “Walkability Checklist”

after all community walking events.4

■ Quasi-experimental studies measure changes in a

population or community who participates in a

program with changes to a similar group or

community without a program. Managers of

Wheeling Walks used a quasi-experimental study

design to demonstrate increases in walking rates as

a result of their media campaign. 

■ Qualitative interviews are useful for collecting 

in-depth information. Through structured

interviews, evaluators ask program participants or

other stakeholders open-ended questions to obtain

a solid understanding of impressions or changes in

attitudes, behavior, or knowledge.

Regardless of the chosen approach, the methodology

should be well researched and adhere to the highest

standards of science. All evaluations should actively

ensure participants’ confidentiality, and data should

be reliable and accurate.

Evaluations should balance the following standards to

ensure evaluation effectiveness:

Utility:The evaluation should be meaningful 

and useful.

Feasibility:The evaluation should provide a practical

analysis of the program. The evaluation should also be

cost effective for the program.

Propriety:The evaluation should consider confidentiality

of participants, in addition to the legal and ethical

implications for those affected by the results.

Accuracy:The evaluation should provide a truthful

representation of the program and should communicate

technically accurate information.

For more information on these standards, please see:

Joint Commission on Standards for Educational

Evaluation. 5

Effective Evaluation Standards

Program planners and managers use logic models to

outline the steps of a program. The models begin with the

problem or opportunity in question and examine the

critical steps the program will undertake to bring about a

desired change. Logic models also identify the external

influences at work in the community that could

potentially affect the outcome as well as the resources

required to change the outcome.

Program managers can use the logic model to identify

measures which track a program’s progress at each step

towards its goals.

What Are Logic Models? How Are They Used?
5

After the method for data collection is determined,

evaluators should plan for data analysis using

accepted statistical and research methods. The type

of analysis chosen will depend on the desired uses of

the information. For a complex analysis, program

planners may tap local experts for assistance.

Gather credible evidence: Evaluators obtain data from

various sources, depending on the type of evaluation.

Program participants, stakeholders, and

administrative records can all be data sources.

Evaluators should determine in advance all necessary

aspects of data collection, including logistics.

Involving stakeholders in the design of both the

program and the evaluation aids credibility by

ensuring that all points of view are considered, the

program will address the population’s needs, and the

data will be meaningful to users. This involvement

helps ensure that primary audiences will consider the

resulting data credible.

Measures should assess discreet aspects of a program

that relate to program goals and the time frame for

achieving them. Established during the planning

stages, measures quantify progress towards a desired

goal and should be clearly linked to the program’s

logic model.

Justify conclusions: After the collection, evaluators

synthesize, analyze, and interpret the data using

previously determined methods. Standards against

which to compare data – such as a baseline

measurement, a comparison to previous years,

studies, or measures from comparable communities

or the US – will help determine whether or not the

program is functioning well or achieving the desired

outcomes. Program planners, with stakeholder

involvement, can then use the evaluation data to

recommend program changes and/or create 

other programs.

Ensure use and share lessons learned: Program

mangers should determine in advance how the

evaluation results will be presented to users and

stakeholders. Throughout the process, managers

should share information with all parties to solicit

feedback and respond to any concerns raised.

Following the evaluation’s completion, managers

should disseminate findings in a format that is easily

understood and accurately depicts the information

and analysis.

Because community programs may have a small number

of participants and key stakeholders may be easily

identified, evaluators must ensure that all information is

anonymous or that the identities of those who provided

information are kept secret from external parties. By

doing so, participants are protected and the integrity of

the data is maintained.

Confidentiality
6

Evaluation Challenges and Strategies for 

Addressing Challenges

Although many program managers appreciate the

utility of evaluations, many programs evaluate neither

process nor outcomes due to the perceived challenges

associated with evaluation. The following are

examples of common evaluation challenges and

suggested strategies for meeting these challenges.

The Cost Challenge: Program evaluation can be

expensive. A rigorous evaluation can cost more than

a program has allotted for research purposes. Also,

given the choice between research and provision of

services, many managers choose to provide direct

services to the community. 

Strategies: Evaluations can be built into

program plans without adding great expense.

By following the steps above, managers can

design informative, quality evaluations.

Managers also can seek external funding for

evaluation purposes, such as from local or

national foundations. 

The Time Challenge: Evaluation efforts may be time

consuming and could divert staff from the day-to-day

program functioning. 

Strategy: Managers can address this challenge

by planning small and effective evaluation

components into the program’s functioning.

The Expertise Challenge: Most evaluation efforts

require a minimal level of expertise. Although

complicated analyses or study designs require

expertise in research and statistics, many meaningful

lessons can be learned from simple process

evaluations. 

Strategies: In some cases, assistance may be

provided in-kind by asking local entities to

contribute to the program. Expertise may be

solicited from local colleges, universities

(especially schools of public health), hospitals,

and health departments. National resources

like the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s

Communities for Active Living program

offices or the CDC can provide technical

assistance for the evaluation of active 

aging programs.

The Measurement Challenge: Any evaluation must

ensure that the performance measures will answer the

questions that will lead to an understanding of a

program’s effects. 

Strategy: Careful planning from the program’s

outset – including the development of

program goals, objectives, logic models, and

measures – help ensure that the information 

is useful.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), a

philanthropic organization dedicated to improving health

and health care in the US, currently funds several program

evaluation projects. A sampling of evaluation projects

from their website shows expenditures ranging from

$32,000 for eight months to $671,000 over four years.

Source:www.rwjf.org, accessed on August 12, 2002.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Evaluation helps programs maximize their

effectiveness in pursuit of safer, healthier, and active

communities. Program managers should make every

reasonable effort to overcome barriers to evaluation as

the data and analysis provide insight into the

direction, functioning, and outcomes of a program.

Barriers to evaluation should be overcome. With

careful planning from the beginning, evaluation can

be built into routine program activities, and

assessments can be included in the program’s budget.

Additional Evaluation Guidance for Program Managers

■ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

www.cdc.gov (For CDC’s Physical Activity 

Evaluation Handbook, see http://www.cdc.gov/

nccdphp/dnpa/physical/handbook/pdf/handbook.pdf )

■ Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: www.rwjf.org

(For RWJF’s Active for Life program, see

http://www.activeforlife.info/) 

■ United Way Foundation: www.unitedway.org

7

Conclusion
8

1 For more information on impact evaluations, see US

General Accounting Office. The Use of Impact

Evaluations to Assess Program Effects. 2001; Report

No. GAO-01-542.

2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Framework for Evaluation in Public Health. MMWR

1999;48(No. RR-11).

3 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Framework for Evaluation in Public Health. MMWR

1999;48(No. RR-11).

4 “Walkability Checklists” are published by the

Partnership for Walkable America. This survey

collects participants’ feedback on perceived

limitations, personal walking habits, and program

impressions. It can be accessed at

http://www.nsc.org/walk/wkcheck.htm.

5 Program evaluation standards: How to assess

evaluations of educational programs. 2nd ed.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994, as

cited in Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health.

MMWR 1999;48(No. RR-11): 26-31.

References
9

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to our Creating Communities for Active Aging advisory committee who provided editorial

guidance for this document and have contributed their expertise throughout the project.

David Buchner, MD, MPH, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dan Burden, Walkable Communities, Inc.

Karen Scott Collins, MD, MPH, New York City Health and Hospital Corporation

Tom Cove, Sporting Goods Manufacturers of America

Carol C. Hogue, RN, PhD, FAAN, University of North Carolina School of Nursing and 

UNC Institute on Aging

Marla Hollander, MPH, CHES, Active Living Policy Center

Jan K. Malcolm, Minnesota Department of Health

Barbara McCann, Smart Growth America

Lois Michaels, MSHyg, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health

Audrey Straight, JD, AARP

Jane C. Stutts, PhD, University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center

Michael Whelan, City of Largo Recreation and Parks Department

Bill Wilkinson, National Center for Bicycling and Walking

Partnership especially appreciates the invaluable guidance of the advisory

committee chair, Lois Michaels, MSHyg, who also serves on Partnership’s

Board of Directors. Laurie Flaherty, RN, MS, National Highway Traffic

Safety Administration also provided assistance.

Dana Carr, MPH, senior policy analyst at

Partnership, wrote this brief with assistance from

Molly E. French, MSCRP, director of policy

research.

Partnership for Prevention is a national membership-based research

organization committed to increasing resources for and knowledge

about effective disease prevention and health

promotion policies and practices. Our diverse

membership includes corporations, nonprofit

policy and research institutions, professional

and trade associations, voluntary health

organizations, health plans, and state health

departments. Partnership adheres to the

highest standards of scientific evidence

supporting the case for preventive services,

health promotion, and environmental health.

Partnership can be found online at

www.prevent.org. 

This research was supported by the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(NHTSA) under Co-operative Agreement No.

DTNH22-00-H-05210. The opinions,

findings, and recommendations contained

herein are those of Partnership for Prevention

and do not necessarily represent those of NHTSA.
© 2002, Partnership for Prevention 

1015 18th Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20036 

(202) 833-0009

www.prevent.org

PARTNERSHIP FOR

PREVENTION