External Evaluation

An external evaluation is conducted by an evaluator who is not an employee of the organization that houses the object of the evaluation (e.g., the program). An external evaluator brings objectivity, accountability, and perspective to the problem at hand.

A key characteristic that distinguishes an external evaluation from an internal one is the objectivity of the evaluator. An external evaluation is governed by the terms of a contract between the organization and the evaluation consultant that are specific to the tasks of the evaluation project and are limited in duration to the life of the project. Contractual obligations tend to hold the evaluator's focus on the parameters of the evaluation itself and seldom allow the consultant to get involved in broader organizational issues. The bonds are easy to sever by either party, and thus the relationship tends to be both temporary and rather watchful. External evaluators are not constrained in their relations with staff and can communicate with all levels without fear of reprisal. They are at ease dealing directly with their client, who has limited influence over their careers outside of the terms of their contract.

On the other hand, internal evaluators are likely to be part of a larger group or department; they may even be part of a bargaining unit; they have a clearly defined location on the organization chart, as well as within the internal culture; and they have a personal stake in the success of the organization. Their relations with other staff members may be hampered by the implications of their judgmental role; their employer may find it difficult to sanction them due to the organization's complex contractual environment. Because of the reporting structure, they may never [Page 151]have access to the head of their program or organization to present their study findings.

Compensation arrangements associated with an external evaluation tend to heighten accountability. The internal evaluator receives a salary regardless of the degree of completion of the evaluation project, but timelines and penalties for noncompletion are much more stringent for the external evaluator. Clearly, the consultant will not be paid if the work is not done. The disadvantage of a focus on contractual obligations is that discussions between consultant and client can deteriorate to legalistic interpretations about milestones and deliverables. The advantages of these cut-and-dried arrangements are several: The drive to completion is likely to be stronger; the evaluation process is likely to be more transparent, or at least better documented; and the evaluator's accountability will be more pronounced.

Another key characteristic of an external evaluation is perspective. Although an internal evaluator may have a deep understanding of the context and politics within which the program is embedded, an external evaluator has a broader perspective that results from having evaluated other programs in other contexts. External evaluators often belong to a wide array of communities and bring broader influences from such areas as academia, business, and other work communities, as well as from the evaluation field itself, to the evaluation problem. Because they lack the support of the internal culture provided by membership in the organization under review, they may rely more heavily on membership in professional groups to cultivate informal support networks, again broadening the perspectives brought to an evaluation project. This cross-fertilization of ideas can result in fresher, more innovative ways of looking at organizational issues that may not be apparent from the inside. Further, through a series of engagements in different settings, external evaluators have honed their craft by developing a whole host of ways to interact with stakeholders, collect data, and present findings. Thus they are better able to respond to the unexpected as the evaluation is implemented.

...