Goal-free evaluation (GFE) is an evaluation approach where the evaluator conducts the evaluation without knowledge of the program's stated goals and objectives. The GFE evaluator attempts to observe all actual outcomes of the program, intended or unintended, in order to determine what the program actually does without reference to what it intends to do. GFE has benefits such as reducing bias, uncovering unintended effects, and aligning goals with actual outcomes, but criticisms include the risk of missing important effects and lack of guidance for implementation.

1. 1
Human Development

2. Md. Mehadi Rahman
Roll: 16-589
18th
Batch
Evaluation and Educational Research(EER)
IER
University of Dhaka

3. Goal Free Evaluation
• Goal-free evaluation (GFE) is any evaluation in
which the evaluator conducts the evaluation without
particular knowledge of or reference to stated or
predetermined goals and objectives.
• The goal-free evaluator attempts to observe and
measure all actual outcomes, e ects, or impactsff ,
intended or unintended, all without being cued to
the program’s intentions.
• GFE evaluator asks: What does the program
actually do? Rather, what does the program intend
to do?

4. Goal Free Evaluation
• “Merit is determined by relating program effects to
the relevant needs of the impacted population, (Scriven,
1991. p. 180).”
• A comprehensive needs assessment is conducted
simultaneously with data collection.
• “The evaluator should provide experiential accounts
of program activity so that readers of the report can,
through naturalistic generalization, arrive at their
own judgments of quality in addition to those the
evaluator provides, (Stake, 2004 in Alkin, 2004, p. 215).

5. Goal Free Evaluation Model
Goal free evaluation was developed by Michael
Scriven in 1972.

6. Michael Scriven
(b. 1928)
• British born Australian philosopher
• University professor, 50 years of experience
• Bachelors and Masters from Melbourne University,
Australia
• Ph.D. from Oxford University
• Currently co-director of Claremont Evaluation Center
• Exceeds 450 publications

7. Major Characteristics of Goal Free
Evaluation
• Evaluator actively avoids information regarding program
goals.
• Evaluator does not have preconceived goals in order to
narrow the focus.
• Evaluator has minimal contact with staff or members of
the program.
• Without information regarding goals, evaluator is more
likely to see unanticipated effects of program.

8. Example
• An evaluator might be asked to evaluate the effectiveness
of an adult basic education (ABE) project housed within
the program of a local adult learning center (ALC). Also
housed in that program are workplace literacy, welfare-to-
work, and adult computer literacy projects. Clients of the
adult learning center may participate in any or all of these
programs. Thus it would be difficult to isolate the results of
just one project's activities. A goal-free evaluation would
examine the overall results for the clients of the ALC
program, which would be more meaningful than individual
evaluations of each project.

9. When to use Goal Free Evaluations
• When stakeholders want:
 Information about program outcomes, both intended
and unintended.
 Critique not focused on the program goals.
• When evaluators:
 Have no knowledge of program goals, intentionally
or unintentionally
 Want to identify the effect of a program from data
collection, observations, and interviews

10. Needs and Nature of Goal Free Evaluation
• Goal free evaluation needs
1) Access to program/project participant
2) Access to all data
3) Time
• Nature of Goal free evaluation
 A goal free evaluation tends to be qualitative in nature.
That is, this evaluation is one of discovery.
 By interviewing participants in an unstructured interview,
the evaluator begins to identify outcomes.
 Several interview may be necessary. Participant
observation may, if possible, be necessary.

11. Methodologies
• Scriven (1991) claims GFE is methodologically neutral,
which means that it can be used or adapted for use with
several other evaluation approaches, models, and methods as
long as the other approaches do not mandate goal
orientation.
• Determine what effects this program had and evaluate them
whether or not they were intended.
• Evaluate the actual effects against a profile of demonstrated
needs
• Determine if what occurred can logically be attributed to the
program or intervention.
• Determine the degree to which the e ectff is positive, negative, or
neutral.

12. Methodologies
• Notice something that everyone else overlooked over all
perspective.
• Do not be under the control of the Management. Choose
the variables of the evaluation independently.
• The key to goal-free evaluation is to have an evaluator
enter the field and try to learn about a program and its
results inductively and without being aware of the
specific objectives of the program.
• Note that GFE approach is useful as a supplement to the
more traditional goal-oriented evaluation.
• Goal free evaluation is done by a separate evaluator, who
collects exploratory data to supplement another
evaluator’s goal-oriented data.

13. Critical Elements of Goal Free
Evaluation
• Goal free evaluation demands that the
evaluator have good knowledge of the subject
of evaluation.
• Evaluator competence is a major issue.
Included in this element is the requirement that
the evaluator be free of bias.

14. Implementation Techniques for Goal
Free Evaluation
• Ask questions and devise ways to find answers.
• Determine what the evaluation will do and how it will benefit
stakeholders
• Select appropriate methodologies for gathering data
• Interviewing and interviewing again, Focus groups
 Development of emergent themes
 Reflective feedback
 Identify key and critical issues
 Forming theories
 Unexpected outcomes (Strength of Goal free evaluation)
• Draw out key issues
• Provide appropriate feedback and constructive criticism

15. Comparison between GFE Goals and
Stated Goals

16. Comparison between GFE Goals and
Stated Goals

17. Benefits of Goal Free Evaluation
Goal-free evaluation benefits are based on:
1. controlling goal orientation-related biases,
2. uncovering side e ects,ff
3. avoiding the rhetoric of “true” goals,
4. adapting to contextual/environmental changes
5. aligning goals with actual program activities and
outcomes,
6. supplementing GBE

18. 1. Controlling goal orientation-related biases:
• Through reducing interaction with program sta and byff
making the evaluator blinded from the program’s
predetermined goals or objectives, GFE is less vulnerable to
some of the social biases.
• Goal-free evaluation o ers fewer opportunities for evaluatorff
bias in attempts to satisfy the evaluation client because the
evaluator is therefore unable to determine ways of
manipulating in the evaluation client’s favor.
2. Uncovering side e ects:ff
• Goal-free evaluation can benefit foundations and their
programs because it is more likely to identify unintended
positive and negative side e ectsff simply because the method
allows for and encourages a broader range of outcomes as
well as unanticipated outcomes

19. 3. Avoiding the rhetoric of “true” goals:
• Goal-free evaluation avoid the difficult rhetorical and often contaminating
task in traditional evaluations of trying to identify true current goals and true
original goals, and then defining and weighting them.
• Historically, goals were embedded in professional mode, current jargon, or
lists of priorities where “the rhetoric of intent was being used as a substitute
for evidence of success” (Scriven, 1974, p. 35)
• The obvious issue is that when goals are poorly founded, the goal-based
evaluator will miss critical e ects that may be detectable to the goal-freeff
evaluator.
4. Adapting to contextual/environmental changes:
• GFE can be adapted to the periodic changes in consumer needs, program
resources, and program goals. Consumers, programs, foundations, and their
environments are dynamic.
• The goal-free evaluator can continue inquiry when a program’s goal
changes, as long as changes in goals or objectives are reflected in the
program’s actions and outcomes, the goal-free evaluator recognizes and
records these e ects.ff

20. 5. Aligning goals with actual program activities and outcomes:
• The goal-free evaluator finds outcomes that are attributable to the
program intervention and renames these outcomes operating goals.
All operating goals, therefore, have potential to become an official
program goal or objective.
• GFE can be useful in aligning a program’s goals with its actual
activities and performance, potentially resulting in a broader, more
comprehensive list of criteria for judging a program’s merit and a
more thorough examination of a program’s outcomes.
6. Supplementing GBE(Goal-based Evaluation):
• An evaluation may begin goal-free and later become goal-based
using the goal-free data for preliminary investigative purposes; this
ensures that the evaluator still examines goal achievement.
• The findings from the GFE can be used as baseline information for
subsequent GBEs. Another example of GFE informing GBE is
when GFE is used as a complement to GBE. A GBE and GFE can
be conducted simultaneously by di erent evaluators.ff

21. Uses of Goal Free Evaluation
In School :
• To evaluate programs targeting pre-requisite skills,
where success may impact more than initial skills, such
as:
 Reading fluency
 Mathematical operations and reasoning
 Writing skills
 Problem solving or critical thinking skill

22. Uses of Goal Free Evaluation
In Districts/Country:
• To evaluate resource allocations, such as:
 Staffing ratios at primary, secondary, and high schools as
well as district office
 Budget expenditures
 Technological systems and access to information
• To evaluate policy implementation, such as:
 Grading practices
 Attendance Rules
 Special programs and Services
• To evaluate curriculum, such as:
 Required knowledge and skills

23. Criticism
• There is a chance that some of the most important effects
will be missed.
• The model failed to come to grip with the question of
what effects to look at, and what needs to be assessed.
This eventually led Scrivens to admit that goal-free
evaluation was best used as a supplement to goal-based
evaluation.
• This approach can only lead to poor planning.
• Goal-free evaluation is seen as a threat by many program
designers

24. Criticism
• Some critics have faulted Scriven for not providing more
explicit directions for developing and implementing the
goal-free model; as a consequence, it probably can be
used only by experts who do not require explicit guidance
in assessing needs and detecting effects.
• While it may be a very useful theory, it is not necessarily a
practical model. Indeed, few cases of Goal-free Evaluation
have been documented.
• Critics of Goal-free Evaluation consider the term ‘goal-
free’ evaluation to be a misnomer. The evaluator does not
get rid of all goals, but replaces the goals of the project
staff with more global goals based on societal needs and
basic standards of morality.

25. Reference
• https://www.wmich.edu/sites/default/files/attachments/u58/201
4/cafe-Youker-Fall-051.pdf
• http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1182&context=tfr
• http://academlib.com/8293/management/goal-free_model
• http://nsfconsulting.com.au/goal-free-evaluation/
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lB9MiVxNT0
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__0yWU1Sh-w
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uRdbnTpJaI

26. Thank you all