Applying logics of change to the evaluation of community development in health promotion

Evaluation of community-oriented health promotion programs requirethat professional evaluators clearly distinguish between exogenouslyand endogenously defined goals and definitions of ‘success’.Acknowledging the different dynamics which underpin community-ledchange and externally initiated health programs and interventionsis essential to this task. It will be argued that the intersectionof, and boundaries around, exogenous and endogenous change canbest be understood and clarified through the application of‘logics of rationality’, adapted from social theory.Community activity is characterised by what we have called ‘lifeworldrationality’ community-based health promotion interventionsare characterised by ‘formal ratonality’. In addition,we suggest that the value dimensions (‘substantive rationality’)underpinning programs and interventions may be overlooked bypolicy makers, program planners and professional evaluatorsunder pressure to demonstrate cost-effectiveness and efficiency.Key requirements for successful and appropriate evaluation ofcommunity-based programs which are sensitive to the needs andsuccess criteria of communities include a shared understandingby the researchers, program sponsors and community actors ofthe nature of the changes sought. The co-production of healthpromotion standards and of indicators to judge the performanceof the program or intervention by all stakeholders should bepreferred over the trend for establishing community-controlledprocess evaluations to coexist alongside expert-controlled impactevaluations. It is argued that current approaches to standardsetting and indicator development to judge the processes andimpacts of interventions are inadequate and several principlesfor improving their content are given. A locally controlledethnographic approach to evaluate endogenous community-led changeis described in the hope that program planners and evaluatorsmay become more sensitive and receptive to local knowledge.We suggest that engagement with what we have termed the ‘communitystory’ should be a fundamental requirement for the planningand evaluation of community health programs.