Scope
\This practice begins with evaluation. We examine how systems are designed, how standards are articulated, and how decisions are governed, using declared standards and admissible evidence as the basis for analysis.
\What This Evaluation Provides
\- \
- The standards that govern a system, or where standards are implicit, fragmented, or absent \
- How evidence is defined, collected, and used in decision-making \
- Where risks arise from ambiguity, inconsistency, or diffused accountability \
How Evaluation Relates to Action
\Evaluation establishes a clear, defensible account of how a system currently operates under its governing standards.
\Organizations use evaluation in different ways, depending on context. For example:
\- \
- A college or university may examine how academic or student-support decisions are governed, particularly where accreditation or external oversight shapes expectations for fairness and accountability. \
- A healthcare or human services organization may assess governance and decision structures tied to regulatory or contractual obligations. \
- A nonprofit or philanthropic organization may evaluate whether internal governance practices align with stated standards for fairness, effectiveness, or accountability. \
- A corporate or internal governance body may use evaluation to clarify how standards are applied across units, roles, or decision pathways. \
Evaluation does not prescribe next steps. It provides a reliable account of current conditions so leaders can decide how to proceed.
\Where organizations choose to pursue changes after an evaluation, additional services may be available through separately scoped engagements, initiated only after evaluation is complete.
\How the Work Is Conducted
\Each evaluation follows a consistent sequence:
\- \
- Standards are made explicit before evidence review \
- Scope is defined and fixed at the outset \
- Evidence is assessed against declared standards \
- Findings describe alignment and risk, not intent or aspiration \
This sequence supports consistency, transparency, and defensibility across institutional contexts.
\