Evaluation Process

Master copies of evaluation forms were delivered to the Cluster evaluation representative. Copies were distributed to all participants at each Cluster meeting. Participants were asked to answer questions regarding arrangements, technology demonstration sessions, and primary sessions delivered by MIRA trainers.

Forms were returned to the Heartland Center for Leadership Development for processing. Numerical data were scanned and mechanically tabulated using specialized computer software. Written commentary was evaluated thematically, summarized and reported.

MIRA participants were generally friendly in helping with the evaluation process, but they seemed to have more to say about the "Kellogg program" than their own internal workings. The Cluster also exhibited a lack of ownership. Although critical of the process and of team activities, participants did little to effect positive change. When asked to analyze the learning experience, group dynamics, or how MIRA might impact their community, most comments were generalized, terse or vague. It seemed like most participants were simply focused on what they had to do to get their grants and to complete their projects. Those persons who held stronger leadership roles tended to be more analytic, but even they seemed somewhat guarded and uncomfortable with self-evaluating questions.

The evaluator made every effort to assure participants that the evaluation process would have no effect on their grant awards, and that it was intended only forprogram improvement and to measure results. Still, participants were much more inclined to comment on the mechanics of M IRA, rather than personal development or community outcomes. These tendencies may be due to the timing of the team interviews, which were conducted during January and February of 1999. Teams had just submitted their proposals and were waiting on the funding disbursement. They were at a "process" stage in the program. Had interviews been conducted as teams were implementing or completing their projects, their comments may have reflected more anticipation for results or outcomes.