Lessons in contracting for evaluations

Abstract

A 1995 evaluation of the U.S. Marine Corps’ personnel evaluation system and a 1991 evaluation of the National Assessment Governing Board procedure for setting cut scores on the mathematics section of the National Assessment of Educational Progress provided valuable lessons in how to minimize the risks of misunderstanding what an evaluation will involve, subversion of the evaluation, controversy, and animosity. Both evaluations were nationally significant, had to be conducted quickly, were politically volatile, were keyed to professional standards, and had substantial impacts. However, the latter evaluation went sour, whereas the former received an official commendation. Evaluators should do all they can to demonstrate to clients that sound evaluations are not to be feared, but should be valued and used. An investigation of what went right and wrong in these evaluations identified contracting as a key variable. This article advises evaluators and clients to regularly negotiate clear, sound contracts before proceeding with an evaluation, and presents a checklist to assist in the contracting process.