Importance of evaluation

In the absence of clearly stated goals and objects, evaluation of program outcomes becomes difficult. Of the 313 state program-types that submitted information, 99 reported having an evaluation process and twenty-six were in the process of developing formal evaluation processes. Overall, approximately 41% of state program-types are evaluated in some manner or are in the process of evaluation.

NGO program-types appear to be less likely to have evaluation processes. Approximately 18% reported having an evaluation process. Of the 102 NGO program-types that submitted information, fifteen had evaluations in place and another five were in the process of developing an evaluation program.


A 1 indicates that the program manual or formal evaluation is in progress and is not yet competed.
1= expected completion of summer 2009, 2= no date given, 3= expected completion in 2009, 4= we’ll always be evaluating

The tables above contain details on the frequency of state (by AFWA region) and NGO program evaluations by program-type. Several states and NGOs are notable in their development of program evaluations, in particular Texas (9 processes), Arizona (7), and South Carolina (7); and National Rifle Association (6 processes) and Texas Wildlife Association (4).

Details on the program evaluation metrics were also collected. Most of the metrics employed measure program outputs rather than program outcomes. These types of measures are valuable in monitoring participation and response rates, but do not capture behaviors or after-event participation. As a result, it will likely be difficult to determine which programs are successful in actually recruiting new hunters or retaining existing hunters.