In May 2006 a program evaluation was released on the Jazz Ambassador Program in the U.S. The Jazz Ambassador Program is for improving the understanding of U.S. society and for opening doors to a variety of publics. The JA program has several goals and is essentially a program in which musicians travel the world and through music and workshops work to improve attitudes and beliefs about the American people and the U.S. government and to establish cultural exchange between Americans and citizens of other countries. The Program evaluation documents the impacts of the JA program and also examines how cultural programming such as the JA program promotes cross-cultural exchange and learning. The original document is 90 pages, but I am focusing in the executive report which is a summarized version of the evaluation that highlights the main parts of the evaluation and summarizes the findings.
The evaluation took place in four main parts. First a program review was done in which content analysis of all program activities since its inception was completed. The Evaluators also conducted interviews at this stage. The second part of the evaluation was online surveys with staff that had managed or been involved with the program while overseas. The third element of the evaluation plan comprised of site visits to areas the JA program had visited in the recent past or the present. Locals and staff at these locations were interviewed to determine the effectiveness of the JA program. The fourth element was conducting musician surveys and musician interviews. In the end the evaluators concluded that the JA program was indeed highly successful and that the program should continue. I am struggling to decide which model this evaluation process fits. I see elements of Scriven’s model in that it was a relatively simple approach and the goals of the program were evaluated. Also the end product seems to be very summative and states that the program is effective. There is little indication if formative evaluation was given as the evaluation process was in progress. The evaluation of the JA program may not fit entirely with Scriven’s model, but it seems to be very similar.
Some strengths of the evaluation that I noted was that it seemed to be very thorough. The evaluators interviewed or surveyed almost everyone involved in the program and collected a huge amount of qualitative and quantitative data to support their findings. Another strength I noted was that each program goal was evaluated through interview or survey and an assessment was made as to its effectiveness. As a weakness I noted that there was very little if no feedback given to as to where improvements in the program could be made. All categories were evaluated very highly, which is a possibility, but it seems to me that no program is perfect and this document gave no areas in which improvements could be made. Again, not being part of the evaluation I have no firsthand knowledge that the program wasn’t as effective as the evaluation states, but it does make me wonder.
The evaluation documents of the JA program can be found at
Thanks Angela for sending the website link as there are plenty of great resources there to share. As for your evaluation, great choice. Interesting way the U S government is using culture to influence peoples' opinion. It is a great way of looking at programming for political or PR purposes. I don't see anywhere in the report where the people in the countries were asked about having the JAs in their environments. I agree that the data collection from those involved is thorough and I would not want to have to analyze all that data. They are asking people who are supposed to positively promote a program to tell what they think of it. My guess is that you are going to receive positive feedback. I did not see any recommendations about the process or future related to the program so in my mind this report does not do what it is supposed to. I am glad that it made you wonder as well.
ReplyDeleteHi Angela,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your critique of this program. The program itself was extremely surprising and intriguing I thought. As Jay said, what an interesting concept and I am curious to read further as to its inception and if it is grounded in any research of other similar programs (and if they even exist). I do see the value of music being an international language and definitely a way to build connections and share global perspectives. Not sure if the reciprocity is in place for this however. It is highly unfortunate that no recommendations were made nor any room for improvement was noted. How odd because as you said nothing is perfect and I think it could spell a recipe for disaster down the road. Believing a program is flawless could create some very laid back, disengaged attitudes that will not be responsive to change nor the natural evolution of programs. I wonder how this program receives funding? Thanks for sharing this, it really got me thinking!