The document discusses utilization focused evaluation (UFE) which aims to inform decisions by identifying stakeholders who will use the evaluation and involving them. It identifies key elements of UFE including selecting stakeholders who care about the evaluation and can use the results. The approach involves identifying intended users, assessing their interest and power to act on results. Participatory approaches similarly involve stakeholders in design, questions, and interpretation but UFE specifically focuses on decision makers. Weaknesses can include staff turnover reducing use of results, and identifying the correct decision makers is complex.

1. Utilization Focused Eval
(UFE)
Michael Patton: school programs and social welfare programs

2. Elements of UFE
• Primary purpose is to inform decisions; type of participatory approach
• Personal factor: stakeholders care about the evaluation/in a position to use it
• 1970s study, 20 federal health evaluations; 11 possible factors; 2 main factors: political
considerations & the personal factor
• Critical: evaluator identifies the stakeholders who care/have personal factor
• Involving stakeholders increases ownership and ultimately use of evaluation
(Patton, Cousins, Earle, Greene)

3. UFE Approach
• Step 1: identify intended users/stakeholders
• Interest in the study (pretty critical, as low interest may result in flaking out)
• Power to do something with the results
• Suggest questions; help them be intentional in design of the evaluation
• Context: high-level government officials (e.g. federal cabinet) vs. lower-key
decision makers who have time and interest to get involved

4. Is it like Practical Participatory Approach?
• First stage is unique: stakeholder selection & focus on intended use
• Other stages are very similar: ID questions of interest, consider use, involve
stakeholders in design & data collection, ensure questions reflect values, etc.
• Final stage: interpreting results, making recommendations, etc. all involve
stakeholders
• Patton’s UFE (focus on decision makers) is more like Stufflebeam’s CIPP
model (focus on stages & relevant decisions)

5. Weaknesses
• Staffing turnover, notably of intended users
• To address the matter, suggest a task force of primary users rather than one
• Build in enough time to inform replacements if/when turnover happens
• Finding “the” decision maker isn’t that straightforward
• “ . . .a much less tidy, much more back and forth, in-and-out, around-and-about kind of
process, and all kinds of irrelevancies get tangled in the process . . . Not ‘find the
decision maker and give him the word.’” (Weiss & Mark, 2006, p.480)

6. Participatory
Approaches
Participatory evaluation: “an overarching term for any evaluation
approach that involves program staff or participants actively in the
decision making and other activities related to planning and
implementation of evaluation studies” (2005, p.291).

7. • Partnership between decision makers, people with responsibility, or people with vital
interest (Cousins & Earl)
• Often confused with collaborative evaluation, but King identifies 4 characteristics:
1. Stakeholder based, democratizes eval process
2. Participant ownership
3. Evaluator is consultant/partner
4. Eval skills of participants will likely increase
The relationship between stakeholders & evaluators is the difference between collab &
participatory eval

8. Categories of approaches
• Control over the eval or technical decision-making process
• Stakeholder selection
• Depth of participation
• Practical (intended to have practical application/outcome)
• Transformative (intended to empower stakeholders to transform, bring about social
change; explicitly political purposes)