Presentation (Slide 2) Flashcards
They are often done by outside experts, not the people actually involved.
Traditional evaluations are usually led by researchers or consultants who may not have direct experience with the community they are studying. This can create a disconnect between the evaluators and the people doing the work. Imagine someone from outside your neighborhood coming in and telling you what’s working and what’s not—without fully understanding the challenges or strengths of your community.
They focus on short-term, measurable results rather than long-term community change.
Many funders and decision-makers want quick, clear-cut numbers to prove a program is working. However, real community change takes time and often doesn’t show immediate, measurable results. For example, a youth mentorship program might not immediately reduce crime rates, but over years, it could help build leadership skills, improve education outcomes, and strengthen the community.
They don’t consider local knowledge or the unique needs of a community.
Traditional evaluations often use standardized criteria, which may not capture what actually matters to the people involved. Community members have firsthand knowledge about their own struggles and strengths, and they should have a say in defining success. A project that improves mental health in a neighborhood may not show up in traditional health statistics, but locals might see the difference in how people interact, support one another, and access resources.
Communities may fear that a “bad” evaluation will lead to loss of funding.
If an evaluation only looks at numbers and doesn’t capture the full story, it can make a project seem like a failure—even if it’s making a real impact. This creates fear among community groups that if they don’t meet specific metrics, they will lose funding. As a result, some organizations may focus on what’s easy to measure rather than what’s truly important for long-term change.
