Program Evaluation on Early Head Start
Dr. Daniel K. Pryce
Criminal Justice Policy, Planning, and Evaluation CRIM 5450 – Term Paper One Grading Rubric
Page 1 of 3
Dimension
Exceeds Expectations
90% and above
Meets Expectations
89%-70%
Does Not Meet Expectations
Below 70%
Introduction to
Evaluation of
the Head Start
program
10 Points
The introduction accurately
describes the evaluation being
undertaken. Description of issue is
strongly based on empirical
knowledge and not folk knowledge
(e.g., things seen on the Internet or
television). Purpose of evaluation is
well articulated.
10 – 9 pts.
The introduction minimally describes
the evaluation being undertaken.
Description of issue is based on
empirical knowledge and not folk
knowledge (e.g., things seen on the
Internet or television). Purpose of
evaluation is minimally articulated.
8.9 – 7 pts.
The introduction poorly describes the
evaluation being undertaken. Description of
issue is not based on empirical knowledge but
on folk knowledge (e.g., things seen on the
Internet or television). Purpose of evaluation
is poorly articulated.
6.9 – 0 pts.
Program
Stakeholders
10 Points
Strong logical connection between
program stakeholders identified.
Detailed, well-articulated research
that properly explains the choice of
stakeholders. Scholarly sources are
clearly used to support the choice of
stakeholders.
10 – 9 pts.
Weak logical connection between
program stakeholders identified.
Detailed, well-articulated research
that properly explains the choice of
stakeholders. Scholarly sources are
minimally used to support the choice
of stakeholders.
8.9 – 7 pts.
No logical connection between program
stakeholders identified. Inadequately
articulated research that explains the choice
of stakeholders. Scholarly sources are poorly
used to support the choice of stakeholders.
6.9 – 0 pts.
Inputs
10 Points
Strong logical connection between
program inputs. Detailed, well-
articulated research that properly
explains the choice of inputs.
Scholarly sources are clearly used to
support the choice of inputs.
10 – 9 pts.
Weak logical connection between
program inputs. Detailed, well-
articulated research that properly
explains the choice of inputs.
Scholarly sources are minimally used
to support the choice of inputs.
8.9 – 7 pts.
No logical connection between program
inputs. Inadequately articulated research that
explains the choice of inputs. Scholarly
sources are poorly used to support the choice
of inputs.
6.9 – 0 pts.
Dr. Daniel K. Pryce
Criminal Justice Policy, Planning, and Evaluation CRIM 5450 – Term Paper One Grading Rubric
Page 2 of 3
Program
Process
10 Points
A clear and research-supported
description of the program
evaluation process. An accurate
description of the steps in the
program development process.
10 – 9 pts.
An imprecise, but research-
supported, description of the program
evaluation process. A minimally
correct description of the steps in the
program development process.
8.9 – 7 pts.
A poor description of the program process
that is also not undergirded by research. A
poor description of the steps in the program
development process.
6.9 – 0 pts.
Program
Outputs
10 Points
Strong logical connection between
program outputs. Detailed, well-
articulated research that properly
explains why you reached the
particular choice of outputs.
Scholarly sources are clearly used to
support the choice of outputs.
10 – 9 pts.
Weak logical connection between
program outputs. Detailed, well-
articulated research that properly
explains why you reached the
particular choice of outputs.
Scholarly sources are minimally used
to support the choice of outputs.
8.9 – 7 pts.
No logical connection between program
outputs. Inadequately articulated research that
explains why you reached the particular
choice of outputs. Scholarly sources are
poorly used to support the choice of outputs.
6.9 – 0 pts.
Program
Outcomes
10 Points
Strong logical connection between
program outcomes. Detailed, well-
articulated research that properly
explains why you reached the
particular choice of outcomes.
Demonstrates a clear understanding
of the difference between outputs
and outcomes.
10 – 9 pts.
Weak logical connection between
program outcomes. Detailed, well-
articulated research that properly
explains why you reached the
particular choice of outcomes.
Demonstrates some understanding of
the difference between outputs and
outcomes.
8.9 – 7 pts.
No logical connection between program
outcomes. Inadequately articulated research
that explains why you reached the particular
choice of outcomes. Demonstrates a poor
understanding of the differences between
outputs and outcomes.
6.9 – 0 pts.
Dr. Daniel K. Pryce
Criminal Justice Policy, Planning, and Evaluation CRIM 5450 – Term Paper One Grading Rubric
Page 3 of 3
Challenges and
Summary of
Program
Evaluation
20 points
Provides a detailed explanation of
the challenges to be expected
during the program evaluation
process. Provides a clear and
detailed summary of how the
various stages of the program
evaluation come together to form
the whole.
20 – 18 pts.
Provides some explanation of the
challenges to be expected during the
program evaluation process. Provides a
summary of how the various stages of
the program evaluation come together
to form the whole.
17.9 – 14 pts.
Provides a poor explanation of the
challenges to be expected during the
program evaluation process. Provides a
poor summary of how the various stages
of the program evaluation come together
to form the whole.
13.9 – 0 pts.
Sources and APA
10 Points
Paper properly uses 4 or more
sources to support arguments and
the evaluation of the Head Start
program. All sources are peer
reviewed. APA guide is strictly
followed (e.g., proper use of in-text
citations and correct format for
accompanying references).
10 - 9 pts
Paper properly uses 3 or more sources
to support arguments and the
evaluation of the Head Start program.
All sources are peer reviewed. Minor
(few) departures from APA guide (e.g.,
minor mistakes in use of in-text
citations and partially correct format
for accompanying references).
8.9 - 7 pts
Paper properly uses fewer than 3
sources to support arguments and the
evaluation of the Head Start program.
Some sources are not peer reviewed.
Significant (several) departures from
APA guide (e.g., major mistakes in use
of in-text citations and incorrect format
for accompanying references).
6.9 - 0 pts
Writing
10 Points
Paper is coherently organized, and
the logic is easy to follow. There
are no spelling or grammatical
errors and terminology is clearly
defined. Writing is clear, concise,
and persuasive.
10 - 9 pts
Paper is somewhat organized, and the
logic is easy to follow. There are few
spelling or grammatical errors and
terminology is clearly defined. Writing
is somewhat clear, concise, and
persuasive.
8.9 - 7 pts
Paper is disorganized and/or the logic is
difficult to follow. There are several
spelling or grammatical errors and
terminology is unclear. Writing is not
clear or comprehensible.
6.9 - 0 pts