Empowerment evaluation as a social wwork strategy.

Empowerment evaluation as a social wwork strategy. Incorporation of research and program evaluation Program evaluation is a formalized approach to studying and assessing projects, policies and program and determining if they 'work'. Program evaluation is used in government and the private sector and it's taught in numerous universities. in social workpractice is a recurring re¡¤cur?intr.v. re¡¤curred, re¡¤cur¡¤ring, re¡¤curs1. To happen, come up, or show up again or repeatedly.2. To return to one's attention or memory.3. To return in thought or discourse. issue in social work literature. Programevaluators and researchers continue to search for ways to engage programstakeholders StakeholdersAll parties that have an interest, financial or otherwise, in a firm-stockholders, creditors, bondholders, employees, customers, management, the community , and the government. in the process of designing, implementing, and maintainingevaluation activities that have both scientific merit and practical use(Loneck & Way, 1997; Staudt, 1997). Administrators, practitioners,and consumers constitute a primary group of stakeholders in health caresettings, and their knowledge of and investment in program evaluationcan determine the nature and usefulness of evaluative efforts withinhealth and social work programs. Teaching program stakeholders how togenerate valid, reliable, and meaningful evaluation findings and how toincorporate ongoing evaluation activities in practice settings are majorthrusts of empowerment evaluation (Fetterman, 1994a). This articlereviews current notions about empowerment evaluation and presents a casestudy of its application in developing a pilot evaluation plan for anHIV-prevention program. The case study provides an opportunity toexamine the practice, policy, and research issues encountered in thedevelopm ent of an evaluation plan, using empowerment evaluationstrategies, in a community health setting. The benefits and risksinherent in an empowerment approach to the evaluative research processare addressed. EMPOWERMENT EVALUATION Empowerment is a central theme in social work practice and policy(Lee, 1994), particularly in programs that primarily serve "women,people of color Noun 1. people of color - a race with skin pigmentation different from the white race (especially Blacks)people of colour, colour, colorrace - people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock; "some biologists doubt that there are important , and other oppressed op¡¤press?tr.v. op¡¤pressed, op¡¤press¡¤ing, op¡¤press¡¤es1. To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny.2. groups" (Gutierrez, GlenMaye,& DeLois, 1995, p. 249). In practice settings, one of the goals ofempowerment is "an increase in the actual power of the client orcommunity so that action can be taken to change and prevent the problemsclients are facing" (Gutierrez et al., 1995, p. 250). In the policyarena an empowerment approach strives to "take policy practice andadvocacy to the state and local levels so that providers, consumers, andvolunteer leaders can actively influence and shape local services, buildstronger community collaboration, focus on family outcomes, and developcommunity governance and ownership of programs and initiatives"(Weil, 1996, p. 494). Empowerment evaluation is a natural extension of the social workempowerment perspective and can be considered within the genre ofcollaborative and participatory program evaluation models common tosocial work program evaluation. Stakeholder stakeholdern. a person having in his/her possession (holding) money or property in which he/she has no interest, right or title, awaiting the outcome of a dispute between two or more claimants to the money or property. ownership in the evaluationprocess and product as well as the use of participatory group techniquesto encourage program involvement are integral aspects of empowermentevaluation. However, empowerment evaluation, similar to other socialwork empowerment strategies, is particularly applicable to programs thatserve oppressed peoples (Mertens, 1995; Whitmore, 1990) or in programsthat attempt to further social justice (Chen, 1994). Empowermentevaluation fosters in these agencies the capability of using researchfindings to improve their service delivery systems and to shape theirown programmatic pro¡¤gram¡¤mat¡¤ic?adj.1. Of, relating to, or having a program.2. Following an overall plan or schedule: a step-by-step, programmatic approach to problem solving.3. destinies (Fetterman, 1994a). Thus, the intent totransfer research evaluation knowledge from the researcher-expert toprogram stakeholders for the explicit and ongoing use and benefit of theprograms serving disenfranchised populations is a major distinctionbetw een empowerment evaluation and other collaborative or participatorymodels. Proponents of empowerment evaluation emphasize themultidimensional, multimethodological quality of the approach. Accordingto according toprep.1. As stated or indicated by; on the authority of: according to historians.2. In keeping with: according to instructions.3. Fetterman (1994a), "Empowerment evaluation is the use ofevaluation concepts and techniques to foster self-determination. Thefocus is on helping people help themselves. This evaluation approachfocuses on improvement, is collaborative, and requires both qualitativeand quantitative methodologies. . . . It is a multifaceted approach withmany forms, including training, facilitation FacilitationThe process of providing a market for a security. Normally, this refers to bids and offers made for large blocks of securities, such as those traded by institutions. , advocacy, illumination,and liberation" (p. 1). Empowerment evaluators perform manytra ditional social work roles in conducting an evaluation: teacher,facilitator, and advocate. First, evaluators teach program stakeholdersto conduct their own evaluations by introducing them to and helping themuse a number of program self-evaluation workbooks and other researchtraining tools. Such tools are designed to help program staff andparticipants implement a systematic process of program evaluation.Second, "evaluators can serve as coaches or facilitators to helpothers conduct their evaluation" (Fetterman, 1994a, p. 4). Asfacilitators, evaluators help program stakeholders identify intermediateand long-term evaluation goals and objectives and the measures orindicators used to establish baseline levels of performance with whichfuture progress may be compared. They also assist program stakeholdersin specifying activities that will be needed to achieve intermediate andlong-term goals and objectives. The evaluation remains in the hands ofthe program stakeholders; as coach or f acilitator "the empowermentevaluator simply provides useful information, based on training and pastexperience, to provide direction and keep the effort on track"(Fetterman, 1994a, p.6). Third, evaluators serve as advocates, taking"an active role in making social change happen" (Fetterman,1994a, p. 6) by presenting evaluation findings in public forums,providing information to policymakers, and otherwise participating inlegitimizing and disseminating the results of empowerment evaluations. Empowerment evaluation also is "illuminating"and"liberating" to program stakeholders, because it encouragesthem to examine their programs from differing perspectives and toredefine their own roles within the program structure. Ideally, theprocess results in stakeholders being better able to document programeffectiveness to clients and appropriate policymakers, solve their ownmanagement and service problems, secure their own resources, or promotesocial change on behalf of the populations the y serve. In the following case study, a plethora of community health issuesnecessitated the delivery and integration of multiple services to apopulation at high risk of HIV/AIDS. Within the framework of theempowerment approach described earlier, research and evaluationprofessionals skilled in group process and negotiation worked togetherwith program stakeholders to articulate program goals, to operationalizeprogram objectives and outcomes, and to implement a quasi-experimentaldesign to assess program effectiveness. All participants in this effortwere committed to the promotion of the health and well-being of avulnerable population by improving the programs that serve them. CASE STUDY Decision to Use an Empowerment Approach A statewide HIV-Prevention Community Planning Committee planning committeen (in local government) → comit¨¦ m de planificaci¨®nwasconvened to develop policies, priorities, and plans for the expenditureof state and federal HIV-prevention monies. Part of the mandate was toproduce outcome-based program evaluation findings in a pilot evaluation.The committee selected one of its member HIV-prevention programs for thepilot and recommended that the program develop an evaluation model thatcould provide the basis for a systematic statewide evaluation ofHIV-prevention programs, provide data-collection mechanisms that couldbe incorporated into routine service delivery, process information toassist in ongoing policy and program development, and provide ongoingoutcome information to document program effectiveness. The selectedprogram was a community-based HIV-prevention outreach program targetinglow-income African American African AmericanMulticulture A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.See Race. women at risk of HIV HIV(Human Immunodeficiency Virus), either of two closely related retroviruses that invade T-helper lymphocytes and are responsible for AIDS. There are two types of HIV: HIV-1 and HIV -2. HIV-1 is responsible for the vast majority of AIDS in the United States. because of either theirown or their sexual partners' intravenous drug use intravenous drug useIntravenous drug abuse The habitual IV injection of drugs of abuse Epidemiology In the US ± 2.5 million–population ± 235 million have used IVDs Infections Pyogenic–eg, endocarditis, pneumonia, sepsis Common agents . A team composedof the staff, consumer representatives, and program director of thepilot program; members of the state committee; staff of the state andlocal departments of health; and staff of a university-based surveyresearch center, including a social work research evaluator, was formedto design an evaluation plan and to do the groundwork forimplementation. The goal of the HIV Planning Committee and, subsequently, of theselected program evaluation team was to develop a credible and practicalevaluative design for HIV-prevention programs. To achieve this goal theteam chose an empowerment evaluation approach because such an approachcould provide HIV-prevention program stakeholders with a product, namelyan evaluation plan, that, once implemented, could be maintained andappropriately modified by the agency with minimal dependence on researchexperts; encompassed the criteria set by the statewide committee for apilot evaluation plan; reflected the social work values and traditionbrought to the project by the social work research evaluator, who wasthe evaluation team leader; and was consistent with the goals andstructure of the umbrella agency, the Urban League, which administeredthe HIV-outreach program and which has long been regarded as one of thestrongest enablers of empowerment in African American communities. Critical Review The evaluation team began the pilot evaluation effort with one ofthe first steps in empowerment evaluation, a critical review of theprogram's strengths and weaknesses known as "takingstock" (Fetterman, 1994b). The current outreach efforts consistedof a basic "shotgun" approach - outreach workers distributedmaterials (information, condoms, bleach bleachSolid or liquid chemical compound used to whiten or remove the natural colour of fibres, yarns, paper, and textile fabrics. Sunlight was the chief bleaching agent up to the discovery of chlorine in 1774 by Karl Wilhelm Scheele (b. 1742—d. kits) to any consumer whointeracted with them. The program staff and consumer representativesexpressed dissatisfaction with the program's indiscriminateoutreach approach and agreed to seek and implement a more focusedoutreach strategy. Team members investigated various street outreachprograms and decided to develop an innovative outreach strategy that wascurrently being tested in a demonstration site by the Centers forDisease Control (CDC See Control Data, century date change and Back Orifice. CDC - Control Data Corporation ) (O'Reilly & Higgins, 1991). The new outreach strategy was based on the "stage ofchange" model of behavior change Behavior change refers to any transformation or modification of human behavior. Such changes can occur intentionally, through behavior modification, without intention, or change rapidly in situations of mental illness. , advanced by Prochaska andDiClemente (1986). This model, developed primarily in programs forsmoking cessation smoking cessationPublic health Temporary or permanent halting of habitual cigarette smoking; withdrawal therapies–eg, hypnosis, psychotherapy, group counseling, exposing smokers to Pts with terminal lung CA and nicotine chewing gum are often ineffective. and applied recently to HIV harm/risk reduction(Windsor, Middlestadt, & Holtgrave, 1993), hypothesizes thatindividuals move sequentially through five stages of "readiness tochange" behaviors as they progress from addictive behaviors tosustained abstinence abstinence:see fasting; temperance movements. . The five stages are (1) precontemplation or nointention to change; (2) contemplation ContemplationCompleat Angler, TheIzaak Walton’s classic treatise on the Contemplative Man’s Recreation. [Br. Lit.: The Compleat Angler]Thinker, Thesculpture by Rodin, depicting contemplative man. or awareness of the problem butreluctance to change; (3) preparation or intent to take action (make achange) in the near future; (4) action, or the actual process ofmodifying behaviors; and (5) maintenance, or prevention of a relapse(Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992). In the case example the stage of change strategy required streetoutreach workers to assess the "stage of readiness to change"for each client and to provide interventions tailored to that particularstage. For example, an outreach worker interacting with a clientassessed at the precontemplation stage would stress the causes andconsequences of HIV/AIDS. A client at the contemplation stage wouldreceive one-on-one risk-reduction education (that is, the need for anduse of condoms or sterile drug paraphernalia drug paraphernaliaControlled paraphernalia Substance abuse As defined in a regulatory context, DP is a hypodermic syringe, needle, metal or plastic (snorting) tube, or other instrument or implement or combination adapted for the administration of controlled ), whereas a client atpreparation would work on skill development (that is, how to talk to asexual partner about the need for protection). Providing condoms orbleach kits would be an appropriate intervention for a client in theaction stage, and supportive counseling, referral, and follow-up wouldbe appropriate for someone in maintenance. Development of the Evaluation Plan Consistent with the empowerment model of program evaluation, thesocial work evaluator facilitated the development of the new outreachstrategy and encouraged the program stakeholders to develop,concurrently, a scientifically acceptable evaluation method. Severalevaluation team meetings were held durin g a four-month period. Duringthese meetings the social work evaluator orchestrated or¡¤ches¡¤trate?tr.v. or¡¤ches¡¤trat¡¤ed, or¡¤ches¡¤trat¡¤ing, or¡¤ches¡¤trates1. To compose or arrange (music) for performance by an orchestra.2. brainstormingsessions and participatory group processes and, with the use of thePrevention Plus III workbook work¡¤book?n.1. A booklet containing problems and exercises that a student may work directly on the pages.2. A manual containing operating instructions, as for an appliance or machine.3. (Linney & Wandersman, 1991), helped thestakeholders formulate process and outcome objectives for the newoutreach services and identify and design the appropriate measurementtools and procedures. The outcome objectives for the new street outreach programtranslated into two hypotheses: (1) individuals at high risk of HIV/AIDSwho are assessed and receive interventions based on the stage of changemodel will demonstrate a greater reduction in risk behavior s thanhigh-risk individuals who receive general outreach services; and (2)individuals at high risk of HIV/AIDS who receive specific behavioralchange interventions will move from one stage of change to the nextstage - for example, from contemplation to preparation for change. These hypotheses were to be tested by measuring the risk behaviorsof two groups of high-risk individuals: (1) an experimental group in onehousing project site who were to receive the model program of stage ofchange assessment and interventions; and (2) a comparison group inanother housing project site in the same city who were to receive thebasic "shotgun" style outreach services. Comparability of thetwo groups was determined by demographic profiles. Operational definitions and data collection instruments used in theCDC demonstration project were reviewed by the stakeholders and modifiedfor the pilot evaluation. Two instruments were selected from the CDCproject. The first was the Risk Behavior Screenin g Instrument (personalcommunication with Carolyn Guenther-Grey, Centers for Disease Controland Prevention Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), agency of the U.S. Public Health Service since 1973, with headquarters in Atlanta; it was established in 1946 as the Communicable Disease Center. , December 8, 1994), which identified and collected dataon individuals engaged in high-risk behaviors at the start of the newproject. High-risk individuals were designated as those whoself-reported having used intravenous drugs or having engaged in sexualactivity during the past 30 days. Individuals who agreed to beapproached again or to talk further with an outreach worker becameclients and constituted the study participants. The second instrument was a Risk Assessment (personal communicationwith Carolyn Guenther-Grey, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,December 8, 1994) instrument that measured the dependent variables ofclient risk-taking behaviors (frequency and durat ion) during thepreceding six months and the stage of readiness to change behavior.High-risk behaviors were operationalized as engaging in unprotected sex Unprotected sex refers to any act of sexual intercourse in which the participants use no form of barrier contraception. Sexually transmitted infectionsSpecifically, unprotected sex or using unclean drug equipment at any time during the past six months.The risk assessment instrument was to be administered to the high-riskindividuals at both sites when the new outreach strategy was initiatedat the experimental site and at subsequent three-month intervals for aone-year duration. Outreach workers were to use an interview script tocollect self-report data in face-to-face discussions with clients and torecord the data on index cards carried in purses or jacket pockets. Thescript also included directions for the outreach workers to discussinformed consent and confidentiality issues with clients. Outreach workers trained to identi fy the risk behaviors and changestage of each client and to interact with the client according to theprotocol specific to that stage delivered at the experimental site theindependent variable, for example, the specific behavioral changeinterventions. These outreach workers recorded detailed informationabout each client interaction on a client log,which served as the datacollection instrument for the independent variable. Outreach workers atthe comparison site used an activity log to record their generaloutreach activities. Before the implementation of the actual study, outreach workerspretested the data collection instruments and procedures in a thirdhousing project. This pretest pre¡¤test?n.1. a. A preliminary test administered to determine a student's baseline knowledge or preparedness for an educational experience or course of study.b. A test taken for practice.2. allowed outreach workers to practiceidentifying high-risk clients, assessing readiness for change stages,a nd implementing the protocols (that is, matching behavior interventionswith the corresponding stages). The evaluation plan was reviewed andapproved by the Urban League Executive Director, the state HIVCommittee, and the University Internal Review Board. IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORKERS Practice Issues In the case example, practice implications of the empowermentapproach first surfaced during the critical review of the pilotprogram's strengths and weaknesses. The decision to adopt the newoutreach strategy based on the stage of change model evolved as theprogram stakeholders on the evaluation team worked together to identifyprogram goals for their street outreach. Subsequently, the stakeholderswere able to develop an intervention approach that was consistent withtheir program goals and agency values, one that could provide measurableprogram outcomes. A major practice implication to be addressed in the application ofthe empowerment evaluation model is the difficulty in maint aining thedistinction and the balance between program implementation and programevaluation. Although this complication is not unique to empowermentevaluation, the increased emphasis on collaboration that is a feature ofthe empowerment model makes it more difficult to maintain clearboundaries between service provision and evaluation (Kondrat, 1995).Furthermore, we can assume that during the course of the transfer ofevaluation knowledge from the evaluator to the program staff,modifications in the actual service delivery system will occur. Asillustrated in the case example, program staff members'participation in the design and adoption of the program evaluationprotocol, including modification of the data collection instruments,contributed to the improved quality of the data collected. However, italso affected the overall service provision by defining and limiting thetypes of intervention strategies that could be applied to each of thechange stages. It is important that both th e service provision and evaluationinterests of the program remain distinct and protected so that theevaluation component does not drive the program implementation or viceversa VICE VERSA. On the contrary; on opposite sides. . An equal partnership between the evaluator and the programdirector, the person generally responsible for the programmatic aspects,is essential in ensuring this distinction and ultimately the integrityand progress of both the intervention and the evaluation. Policy Issues In the case example, representatives of the target populationparticipated as consumer volunteers on the evaluation team and emergedas stakeholders in the process. They not only provided relevant insightsinto the receptivity and effect of the outreach effort in the communitybut, along with other program staff members, developed a voice in thedecision making on state and federal HIV funding and service delivery. Many of the policy implications of the case example are related tothe stig ma associated with the populations at high risk of HIVinfection. The unpredictability of the physical health status of theconsumer stakeholders was a potential barrier to their empowerment.Individuals in community groups generally have to be physically healthybefore they can be mobilized for political action. The actual securingof financial resources for the HIV-outreach program was, arguably ar¡¤gu¡¤a¡¤ble?adj.1. Open to argument: an arguable question, still unresolved.2. That can be argued plausibly; defensible in argument: three arguable points of law. , inand of itself a political process. The hope and expectation of everyoneconnected with this pilot project were that the evaluation findingswould help the program be more successful in stopping the spread of HIVin their community and, at the same time, provide empirical evidence tofurther their struggle to obtain funds for HIV prevention and treatmentservices. The empowerment evaluation model encourages programstakehold ers to recognize that evaluation results should be applied toprogram and policy development and implementation. Research Issues The transfer of basic research knowledge from the evaluator -expert to program and consumer stakeholders is a critical feature of anempowerment approach to evaluation. In this case example the social workresearch evaluator introduced the methodological, ethical, and practicalconsiderations involved in experimental design to other members of theevaluation team and encouraged them to debate the value of each aspectfor the program. A quasi-experimental design with repeated measures waschosen, because, as in many community initiatives, ethical and practicalconsiderations preclude the random assignment of clients into anexperimental and a control group. Although limited in its ability todetermine causality causality,in philosophy, the relationship between cause and effect. A distinction is often made between a cause that produces something new (e.g., a moth from a caterpillar) and one that produces a change in an existing substance (e.g. , a quasi-experimental design nonetheless can providesome evidence that behavioral interventions tailored to client stagesare responsible for reducing high-risk behaviors. An appreciation of the factors that contribute to internal validity Internal validity is a form of experimental validity [1]. An experiment is said to possess internal validity if it properly demonstrates a causal relation between two variables [2] [3]. helped the stakeholders make decisions that preserved the scientificcredibility of the evaluation project. For example, when outreach workerstaff turnover created suspicion about the consistent and appropriatedelivery of the independent variable, the team decided to instituteongoing training sessions to monitor the behavior interventions and datacollection protocols. Staff turnover problems, coupled with the adoptionof a new computer system, extended the data collection , entry, andfeedback process beyond the three-month interval intended as themeasurement points for the dependent variables. This delay increased theattrition rate Noun 1. attrition rate - the rate of shrinkage in size or numberrate of attritionrate - a magnitude or frequency relative to a time unit; "they traveled at a rate of 55 miles per hour"; "the rate of change was faster than expected" of clients and the likelihood of confounding confoundingwhen the effects of two, or more, processes on results cannot be separated, the results are said to be confounded, a cause of bias in disease studies.confounding factor eventsoccurring at either the experimental or the comparison site. Despite thetime and money involved, the team decided to "restage" allclients, essentially restarting the project rather than permit furtherthreats to internal validity. We speculate that this evaluation effortwould have produced a less-useful and less-credible product had thestakeholders decided to fo rgo the staff training and program restart. Implementation problems are common in real-world programevaluations (Perry & Backus, 1995). When only an external evaluatoris involved in the evaluation, these problems can lead to staff distrustof the external evaluator, sabotage sabotage[Fr., sabot=wooden shoe; hence, to work clumsily], form of direct action by workers against employers through obstruction of work and/or lowering of plant efficiency. Methods range from peaceful slowing of production to destruction of property. in the data collection efforts, oreven termination of the entire project. However, this pilot evaluationteam addressed these real-world challenges with the previously discussedstrategies. The evaluation team continued to function and completed thedata collection and analysis process for a full year of the project. Intotal, 498 individuals had been "staged": 246 at theexperimental site and 252 at the comparison site. Follow-up rates,however, were low: o nly 15 percent (38) of the experimental group and 13percent (33) of the comparison group were staged more than once. Although the evaluators and program staff were disappointed in thelow number of individuals who completed the total staging process, theynonetheless felt successful in developing a method capable of actuallymeasuring the intervention and the stages of behavior change during theentire course of the pilot program. The program continues, with thefocus now on improving the tracking of participants. Outcome data areforthcoming. Team members also are sharing the program and evaluationknowledge generated from the pilot project with the HIV PlanningCommittee and state and local officials. CONCLUSION The empowerment evaluation model appears to be a useful strategyfor incorporating program evaluation activities into service provisionand for investing practitioners and other program stakeholders in theprocess of developing meaningful and useful measures of programperf ormance. Programs serving disenfranchised or populations of color not of the white race; - commonly meaning, esp. in the United States, of negro blood, pure or mixed.See also: Color have found empowerment evaluation increasingly attractive because of itscapacity to "link evaluation results to political action"(Mertens, 1995, p. 92). The case study presented in this article illustrates some of thebenefits and risks of applying the empowerment evaluation model. First,the case shows how an empowerment process, consistent with socialwork's basic values, was used to help program stakeholders developa scientifically acceptable evaluation model. The program staff of thisHIV outreach project were able to articulate the program's goals,objectives, and outcome measures. They also became skilled in datacollection, in interpreting essential program evaluation principles, andin developing proposals to compete successfully for additional programfunding. Determining whether the stakeholde rs developed these evaluationskills as a direct result of the empowerment model was, unfortunately,beyond the scope of the pilot evaluation project but is an intriguingquestion. The extent to which these skills and commitment to evaluationare maintained by empowered program stakeholders in the long term isalso a question of interest to researchers. At the very least, futureempowerment evaluation efforts may want to measure stakeholders'perceptions of empowerment and their evaluation knowledge and skillsbefore and after the pilot evaluation to provide insight into thecapability of empowerment evaluation to empower program stakeholders. Second, although the project confirms what many researchers andprogram evaluators already know, that is, the difficulty of implementingprogram evaluation in community health and social services social servicesNoun, plwelfare services provided by local authorities or a state agency for people with particular social needssocial servicesnpl ! 92; servicios mpl socialessettings, thecase nevertheless illustrates how an empowerment strategy can helpovercome some implementation obstacles. It can be argued that the activeparticipation of program staff and consumers in the evaluation planningprocess contributed to the motivation and persistence necessary for themto resolve data collection problems in a real-world setting without thefear of compromising intervention strategies. The application of empowerment strategies to program evaluation isnot without criticism (Whitmore, 1990). Many critics question the extentto which objective conclusions can be derived from empowermentevaluation, arguing that program stakeholders may be more invested inpositive results to ensure continued funding and support (Scriven, 1994;Stufflebeam 1994). On the other hand, it can be argued that programstakeholders, particularly those who are consumers of program services,may be more invested than "professional evaluators" inobtaining objectiv e information about the strengths and weaknesses ofthose services if the ultimate goal is to improve services and servicedelivery. The objectivity of any evaluative approach is less likely tobe questioned, particularly by outside constituencies, if theevaluator's method can be demonstrated to be scientifically soundand rigorous. Thus, it can be argued that the use of aquasi-experimental design, coupled with the use of validated instruments(such as those generated from a CDC demonstration project), woulddeflect de¡¤flect?intr. & tr.v. de¡¤flect¡¤ed, de¡¤flect¡¤ing, de¡¤flectsTo turn aside or cause to turn aside; bend or deviate.[Latin d some of the general criticisms directed toward empowermentevaluation strategies. Another concern raised by empowerment evaluation critics is that ofprofessionally trained evaluators "giving away" theirprofessional knowledge to program stakeholders (Scriven, 1994;Stufflebeam 1994). There is some concern that sharing research-basedprogram e valuation skills and knowledge, as well as the responsibilityand authority for implementing the evaluation, may weaken the positionand authority of a professional evaluator and devalue thatprofessional's expertise in the area of program evaluation.However, even the major empowerment evaluation critics "acknowledgethat this position [giving away evaluation knowledge] is professionallysound if its thrust is to help groups institutionalize in¡¤sti¡¤tu¡¤tion¡¤a¡¤lizev.To place a person in the care of an institution, especially one providing care for the disabled or mentally ill.in evaluationprocesses that adhere to adhere toverb 1. follow, keep, maintain, respect, observe, be true, fulfil, obey, heed, keep to, abide by, be loyal, mind, be constant, be faithful2. the standards of sound evaluation"(Stufflebeam, 1994, p. 324). Institutionalization InstitutionalizationThe gradual domination of financial markets by institutional investors, as opposed to individual investors. This pro cess has occurred throughout the industrialized world. of the evaluationprocess and maintenance of the evaluation procedures were primary goalsof the evaluation project described in this article; sharing ofevaluation skills and knowledge was imperative to achieving these goals. Empowerment evaluation strategies are not feasible for all socialwork services and programs. Funding bodies may require professionalevaluation by outside evaluators for specific projects or programs,researchers may attempt to replicate previous projects, and timeconstraints may prohibit the collaborative efforts required ofempowerment strategies. The empowerment process is an endeavor that isboth resource and time intensive. For more than two years, a majorportion of the social work evaluator's time, as well as largeblocks of time from the technical and administrative staff of theresearch organization, was committed to facilitating the development ofprogram services that were evaluable. The budget de mands of the outreachproject and the increasing involvement of staff and volunteers fromother agency projects consumed considerable resources of the parentorganization and led to confusion about the roles of the projectdirector and the agency executive director. Additional time and effortfrom the evaluator and the program stakeholders were required to reach asuccessful resolution. Successful collaborative participation in the evaluation process, akey component in empowerment evaluations, depends to a large extent onthe willingness and ability of the evaluator to share researchexpertise, to communicate the value and relevant strategies ofevaluation skills, and to devote the required time to staff training andteam activities that result in an agency's being able to implementand continue a scientifically credible program evaluation. Inparticular, social workers bring to the empowerment evaluation processthe unique contribution of relationship skills necessary to establishand c ultivate the trust required to optimally conduct this type ofevaluation (Whitmore, 1990). In the case of this HIV outreach project,the program staff remains enthusiastically involved in the project andrecognizes the value in completing the study for what the evaluation cantell them about their program, for the contribution that completion ofthis study can potentially make to the understanding of communityoutreach for hard-to-reach individuals, and for the promotion ofempowerment strategies in health programs serving vulnerablepopulations. REFERENCES Chen, H. T. (1994). Current trends and future directions in programevaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 229-238 Fetterman, D. M. (1994a). Empowerment evaluation. EvaluationPractice, 15, 1-5. Fetterman, D. M. (1994b). Steps of empowerment evaluation: FromCalifornia to Capetown. Evaluation and Program Planning, 17, 305-313. Gutierrez, L., GlenMaye, L., & DeLois, K. (1995). Theorganizational context of empowerment practice: Implications for socialwork administration. Social Work, 40, 249-258. Kondrat, M. E. (1995). Concept, act, and interest in professionalpractice: Implications of an empowerment perspective. Social ServiceReview, 69, 405-423. Lee, J.A.B. (1994). The empowerment approach to social workpractice. New York New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of : Columbia University Press Columbia University Press is an academic press based in New York City and affiliated with Columbia University. It is currently directed by James D. Jordan (2004-present) and publishes titles in the humanities and sciences, including the fields of literary and cultural studies, . Linney, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (1991). Prevention plus III.Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Noun 1. Department of Health and Human Services - the United States federal department that administers all federal programs dealing with health and welfare; created in 1979Health and Human Services, HHS . Loneck, B., & Way, B. (1997). Using a focus group of cliniciansto develop a research project on therapeutic process for clients withdual diagnoses. Social Work, 42, 107-111. Mertens, D. M. (1995). Identifying and respecting differences amongparticipants in evaluation studies. New Directions for ProgramEvaluation, 66, 91-98. O'Reilly, K. R., & Higgins, D. L. (1991). AIDS communitydemonstration projects for HIV prevention among hard-to-reach groups.Public Health Reports, 106, 714-720. Perry, P. D., & Backus, C. A. (1995). A different perspectiveon empowerment in evaluation: Benefits and risks to the evaluationprocess. Evaluation Practice, 16, 37-46. Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward acomprehensive model of change. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.),Treating addictive behaviors (pp. 3-27). New York: Plenum In a building, the space between the real ceiling and the dropped ceiling, which is often used as an air duct for heating and air conditioning. It is also filled with electrical, telephone and network wires. See plenum cable. . Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992).In search of how people change: Applications to addictive behaviors.American Psychologist, 47, 1102-1114. Scriven, M. (1994). The final synthesis. Evaluation Practice, 15,367-382. Sechrest, L. (1994). Program evaluation: Oh what it seemed to be!Evaluation Practice, 15, 359-365. Staudt, M. (1997). Pseudoissues in practice evaluation: Impediments IMPEDIMENTS, contracts. Legal objections to the making of a contract. Impediments which relate to the person are those of minority, want of reason, coverture, and the like; they are sometimes called disabilities. Vide Incapacity. 2. to responsible practice. Social Wo rk, 42, 99-106. Stufflebeam, D. L. (1994). Empowerment evaluation, objectivistevaluation, and evaluation standards: Where the future of evaluationshould not go and where it needs to go. Evaluation Practice, 15,321-338. Weil, M. O. (1996). Community building: Building communitypractice. Social Work, 41, 481-499. Whitmore, E. (1990). Empowerment in program evaluation. CanadianSocial Work Review, 7, 215-229. Windsor, R. W., Middlestadt, S. E., & Holtgrave, D. (1993).Appendix A: Behavioral science behavioral sciencen.A scientific discipline, such as sociology, anthropology, or psychology, in which the actions and reactions of humans and animals are studied through observational and experimental methods. theory. Handbook for Statewide HIVPrevention Community Planning Committees. Atlanta: Centers for DiseaseControl, Division of HIV/AIDS. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mary Secret, PhD, is assistant professor, College of Social Work,University of Kentucky Coordinates: The University o f Kentucky, also referred to as UK, is a public, co-educational university located in Lexington, Kentucky. , 619 Patterson Office Tower, Lexington, KY,40506-0027; e-mail: mcsecr@pop.uky.edu. Audrey Jordan, MSW (MicroSoft Word) See Microsoft Word. , is seniorresearch associate, Virginia Commonwealth University Formed by a merger between the Richmond Professional Institute and the Medical College of Virginia in 1968, VCU has a medical school that is home to the nation's oldest organ transplant program. , Survey andEvaluation Research Laboratory, Richmond, VA. Janet Ford Professor Janet Ford (born ) is a British sociologist and university administrator. In 2007 she is serving as Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of York; her remit includes estates and strategic projects, including the expansion of the University approved on 25 May 2007. , PhD, isassociate professor, College of Social Work, University of Kentucky,Lexington, KY.