Reference no: EM131709082

Assignment

Discussion topic has some very clear points and some not-so-clear points. For example, it is clear that the governor and the new commissioner, Fran, want a specific evaluation outcome to explain budget cuts. It is also clear that the deputy commissioner, Elinor, and Fiona are not comfortable being given an expected outcome prior to the evaluation. What is not clear to me is Elinor's intent when she tells Fiona that they can either work on the project together or contract the evaluation to others. Did Elinor mean that they would work together and conduct a proper evaluation? Did she mean that hiring the work out would force the governor to accept the legitimate results of an evaluation? Did she mean, in both cases, that if Fiona was not willing to "play along", they could get the results that the governor wanted through a different route?

Values and Principles

There are multiple stakeholders in this scenario. The various stakeholders bring their own values to the evaluation process. I will consider the governor, Fran, Elinor, the Department of Human Service, the citizens, and Fiona as stakeholders in this scenario.

The Governor

The governor's conflicting promises, reduced taxes and maintenance of existing health and social programs, were found, in hindsight, to in need of adjustment. The governor needed to reduce spending at the Department of Human Services to keep the promises of balancing the budget and reducing taxes. The governor needed a way to explain this budget cut to voters and he/she planned to get this explanation through a "rigged" evaluation that would tell the public that the funds were not necessary.

Fran Atkin, The Commissioner

Fran, a new commissioner, had the task of explaining the "rigged" evaluation to the deputy commissioner and Fiona, the evaluator. The scenario explains that Fran was uncomfortable but that she felt she had been given the order and that it was in the best interest of the public if she followed them.

Elinor Ames, The Deputy Commissioner

Elinor, an experienced deputy commissioner, was clearly upset about the orders, but it was unclear to me what her intent was going forward. The scenario explains that Fran relied upon Elinor's experience, so it could be that Elinor could have the influence to explain that a "rigged" evaluation is not ethical. Elinor's reputation is also at stake because she has worked in the past to ensure the success of programs in this department.

The Department of Human Service

The Department of Human Services clearly stands to lose funding if the "rigged" evaluation proceeds. The organization's values include providing services to the following stakeholders, the citizens of the community. The outcome of the evaluation could hamper their ability to provide these services.

The Citizens

The citizens stand to lose a great deal through this unethical evaluation. First, they may lose confidence in their government because of the broken promises. I understand that the scenario discusses a minor budget cut. However, a minor budget cut could leave some citizens wanting for needed government services.

Fiona Barnes, The Evaluator

Fiona's reputation as an evaluator is clearly important to her. If she delivers a "rigged" outcome, her reputation as an evaluator could be ruined. Fiona could conduct a legitimate evaluation and end up with the results that the governor wanted anyway. However, I feel that the expectation introduces bias into the evaluation, if only through the power of suggestion. Our textbook explains that evaluators bring their values to the evaluation (McDavid, Huse, & Hawthorn, 2013). The simple fact that Fiona was asked to violate her values by conducting an unethical evaluation could bias Fiona to search for the alternative outcome. It could be possible that the governor's outcome preference might be found through legitimate evaluation, but I feel that Fiona should probably distance herself from the evaluation. Among the AEA Guiding Principles, Fiona's evaluation would be lacking in integrity, respect for people, and responsibility to the general public.

Reference

McDavid, J. C., Huse, I., & Hawthorn, L. R. L. (2013). Program evaluation and performance measurement: An introduction to practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.