We talk a lot about stakeholders in evaluation. These are the folks who are involved in, affected by, or simply interested in the evaluation of your project. But what these stakeholders want or need to know from the evaluation, the time they have available for the evaluation, and their level of interest are probably quite variable. The table below is a generic guide to the types of ATE evaluation stakeholders, what they might need, and how to meet those needs.
ATE Evaluation Stakeholders
| Stakeholder groups | What they might need | Tips for meeting those needs |
| Project leaders (PI, co-PIs) | Information that will help you improve the project as it unfolds
Results you can include in your annual reports to NSF to demonstrate accountability and impact |
Communicate your needs clearly to your evaluator, including when you need the information in order to make use of it. |
| Advisory committees or National Visiting Committees | Results from the evaluation that show whether the project is on track for meeting its goals, and if changes in direction or operations are warranted
Summary information about the project’s strengths and weaknesses |
Many advisory committee members donate their time, so they probably aren’t interested in reading lengthy reports. Provide a brief memo and/or short presentation with key findings at meetings, and invite questions about the evaluation. Be forthcoming about strengths and weaknesses. |
| Participants who provide data for the evaluation | Access to reports in which their information was used
Summaries of what actions were taken based on the information they needed to provide |
The most important thing for this group is to demonstrate use of the information they provided. You can share reports, but a personal message from project leaders along the lines of “we heard you and here is what we’re doing in response” is most valuable. |
| NSF program officers | Evidence that the project is on track to meet its goals
Evidence of impact (not just what was done, but what difference the work is making) Evidence that the project is using evaluation results to make improvements |
Focus on Intellectual Merit (the intrinsic quality of the work and potential to advance knowledge) and Broader Impacts (the tangible benefits for individuals and progress toward desired societal outcomes). If you’re not sure about what your program officer needs from your evaluation, ask for clarification. |
| College administrators (department chairs, deans, executives, etc.) | Results that demonstrate impact on students, faculty, institutional culture, infrastructure, and reputation | Make full reports available upon request, but most busy administrators probably don’t have the time to read technical reports or don’t need the fine-grained data points. Prepare memos or share presentations that focus on the information they’re most interested in. |
| Partners and collaborators | Information that helps them assess the return on the investment of their time or other resources |
In case you didn’t read between the lines, the underlying message here is to provide stakeholders with the information that is most relevant to their particular “stake” in your project. A good way not to meet their needs is to only send everyone a long, detailed technical report with every data point collected. It’s good to have a full report available for those who request it, but many simply won’t have the time or level of interest needed to consume that quantity of evaluative information about your project.
Most importantly, don’t take our word about what your stakeholders might need: Ask them!
Not sure what stakeholders to involve in your evaluation or how? Check out our worksheet Identifying Stakeholders and Their Roles in an Evaluation at bit.ly/id-stake.
*This blog is a reprint of an article from an EvaluATE newsletter published in October 2015.
Lori Wingate 
Executive Director, The Evaluation Center at Western Michigan University
Lori has a Ph.D. in evaluation and more than 20 years of experience in the field of program evaluation. She is co-principal investigator of EvaluATE and leads and a variety of evaluation projects at WMU focused on STEM education, health, and higher education initiatives. Dr. Wingate has led numerous webinars and workshops on evaluation in a variety of contexts, including CDC University and the American Evaluation Association Summer Evaluation Institute. She is an associate member of the graduate faculty at WMU.
Except where noted, all content on this website is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
EvaluATE is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers 0802245, 1204683, 1600992, and 1841783. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.