0

EVALUATION OF THE NATIONAL SKILLS DEVELOPMENT CENTRE (ST. LUCIA)

USING THE CIPP EVALUATION MODEL

Albert P. Joseph

ID No. 20052880

A Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of

[EDID 6504 [Programme Evaluation and Course Assessment Methods]

Trimester 2, [2014]

Email: albert.joseph@open.uwi.edu

University: University of the West Indies Open Campus

e-Tutor: Dr. Marie Wood

Course Coordinator Dr. David Subran

 1

Introduction

Evaluation models provide a systematic way of evaluating various aspects of a

programme from the designing phase, to implementation down to assessment and product. The

CIPP evaluation model is one such model designed by Daniel Stufflebeam which provides a

framework for evaluations of programmes and projects (Mazer, 2013). The model consists of

four phases, which are context, input, process and product. These four phases help evaluators in

answering four basic questions, 1) What should be done?, 2) How it should be done?, 3) Is it

being done as planned? and 4) Did the programme work? (Robinson, 2002). The model will be

applied to evaluate the National Skills Development Centre (NSDC) here in St. Lucia.

The National Skills Development Centre (NSDC) was established in 2001, in an effort to

remedy the problem of unemployment in St. Lucia and also served as a replacement to a Youth

Skills training programme. Recognizing the lack of employment opportunities and the lack of

work ethics among youth, the centre aims to instill among youth the right work attitudes and

knowledge of the job through a range of services which include career counseling, vocational

skills and soft skills training (National Skills Development Centre, 2013).

Context Evaluation

Zhang, Zeller, Griffith, Metcalf, Williams, Shea and Misulis (2011) see the main

objective of context evaluation as assessing the readiness of a project and it is sometimes viewed

as the needs assessment phase. Here planning decisions are made as to what needs to be done. It

is clear that NSDC’s programme arose from a need to address the issue of unemployment and

delinquency among youth. In undertaking context evaluation, stakeholders would determine the

individuals who were at most risk, the career choices that students were interested in, students’
 2

attitudes and behaviours to school and the performance of students in major exams. This would

be done through interviews and document reviews as well as engaging potential students in focus

groups (Morra-Imas & Rist, 2009). Once that type of information was gathered, stakeholders

could now determine the goals and objectives, and determine who the programme would target.

In NSDC’s research for example, they noted that many persons became unemployed

because the banana industry was not doing as well as it used to. Others could not finish school

because they had gotten pregnant along the way (National Skills Development Centre, 2013).

These persons therefore needed new skills. The programme thus targeted at risk youth, displaced

farmers, school dropouts and teenage mothers.

Within the context framework, several objectives were drafted. One of these included “offering

a range of services and programmes to help the unemployed become self-reliant and realizing

their career potential (National Skills Development Centre, 2013).”

Input Evaluation

Input evaluation asks the question, how will things be done to address the identified

need? Inputs will therefore make prescriptions as to what strategies are best suited to address the

objectives outlined (Mazer, 2013). One concern of the NSDC was to ensure that many persons

as possible would benefit from the implemented programmes. As a result, the NSDC set up six

satellite centres around the island so that the services of the NSDC would be decentralized.

As an evaluator, having recognized such input, data would be gathered from the six sites to

determine the background of persons attending these centers and which centres register the

greatest attendance. Part of the structuring process was to partner with several funding agencies

to achieve its mandate of providing information and training. Such inputs by agencies would
 3

mean that information would have to be gathered on how best to allocate those funds based on

the needs of the various individuals at the various centres.

Process Evaluation

Process evaluation monitors the implementation process of the programme (Zhang et al.,

2011). The main question in process evaluation is “Are the various activities being done?” Key

within the process evaluation phase is the issue of documentation as well as feedback, so that if

aspects of the programme are not running smoothly or certain activities are not being done then

there is the strengthening of the programme.

One way that NSDC uses process evaluation is through its annual assessment of the

labour market needs in St. Lucia to determine how to improve on the training programmes and

modules offered. Through process evaluation, activities will constantly be evaluated against the

goals and objectives (Robinson, 2002). Meetings may be held with staff to look at trends and to

strengthen areas of weakness. Periodical interviews may be intertwined with a review of

documents to find out from beneficiaries whether they are satisfied with the skills that they are

learning and whether their needs are being met. The director of the NSDC can also be

interviewed where she will discuss what has been implemented. Finally, in the process stage of

CIPP, after discussions with the directors, coordinators and beneficiaries and donors, a draft

report will be prepared and then sent to funding agencies (Stufflebeam, 2002).
 4

Product Evaluation

Stufflebeam (2002) suggests that product evaluation can be subdivided into four

components which include impact, sustainability, effectiveness and transportability. This aspect

of the model begs the question “Has the programme worked?” (Robinson, 2002).

For the effectiveness aspect of the evaluation, interviews will be conducted with the

participants as well as coordinators. A review of students’ performances throughout their time at

the center will also be done. Since there is an internship component to the programme,

discussions will also be held with the various companies to get feedback from them on the

performance of their interns. A determination will also be made to determine whether monies

donated were used efficiently.

In terms of sustainability, programmes that are very effective will be sustained and others

may be discontinued or adjusted. Some sustainable measures that the NSDC has taken so far

are: the construction of a hospitality training institute with a thrust towards commercial activity,

as well as the refurbishment of a restaurant and craft centre. The NSDC also articulated that “the

job attachment programme had increased by 13%” and that they were pleased to have many of

their participants employed in the same area of training despite not being with the same company

(National Skills Development Centre, 2013). Lastly, the programme is seeking to ensure that

accreditation is achieved so that students can be awarded the Caribbean Vocational Qualification

(CVQ). Such a move has therefore led the institution into ensuring that the training being offered

is set at industry standards.

Not much has been done in terms of transportability of the programme at NSDC.

However, if this programme has to be implemented elsewhere the evaluator will again have to

meet with staff to identify strengths and weaknesses of the programme (Stufflebeam, 2002).
 5

Research will also have to be done on how feasible it is to expand the programme elsewhere

based on funding that they receive.

Conclusion

The CIPP Evaluation Model serves as a very useful tool to evaluators as it provides a

cyclical approach to evaluation. Evaluators using this method are able to use gathered

information to make decisions throughout the length and breadth of the programme. This model

has been used to evaluate the work of the National Skills Development Centre (NSDC) which is

geared towards enhancing the lives of young persons and the unemployed through carefully

strategized programmes, based on research. It is important that the centre continues to evaluate

its programmes to provide strong support towards improving the quality of life of our nation’s

citizens.
 6

References

Mazur, A. D. (2013, June 10). The CIPP Evaluation Model: A summary. Retrieved, June 28,

2014 from http://ambermazur.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/the-cipp-evaluation-model-a-

summary/

Morra-Imas, L.G. & Rist, R. C. (2009). The road to results: Designing and conducting effective

development evaluations. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank

National Skills Development Centre (2013).About us. Retrieved, June 20, 2014 from

http://www.nsdcslu.org/about_us.htm

Robinson, B. (2002). The CIPP approach to evaluation. COLLIT Project. Retrieved, June 21,

2014 from http://www.fivehokies.com/Evaluation/Evaluation%20Approaches/

Management%20Oriented/CIPP%20Approach%20to%20Evalaution.pdf

Stufflebeam, D.L. (2002). CIPP evaluation model checklist: A tool for applying the fifth

installment of the CIPP model to assess long term enterprises. Retrieved, June 20, 2014

from http://www.nylc.org/sites/nylc.org/files/files/250CIPP.pdf

Zhang, G., Zeller, G., Griffith, R., Metcalf, D. Williams, J., Shea, C. & Misulis, K. (2011). Using

the context, input, process and product evaluation model (CIPP) as a comprehensive

framework to guide the planning, implementation and assessment of service-learning

programs. Journal of Higher Education, Outreach and Engagement. 15 (4). P.57

University of Georgia. Retrieved, June 23 from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/E

J957107.pdf