Program Evaluation The JELP is accompanied since inception by professional evaluation by an external company to assess program success and provide insights and tools for program improvement Evaluation Aims: The evaluation accompanying the Jerusalem Inter-Religious Educational Leadership Program serves two parallel functions: ○ A summative function – with the aim of documenting the program's activities, measuring the stakeholders' satisfaction from its activities, and mostly - estimating its success in reaching its objectives, and whether any unplanned by-products also resulted from the program. ○ A formative function – with the aim of  learning from the program's processes of implementation and realization in relation to its planned action model, and reaching conclusions which would assist the program developers and leaders in shaping and improving the program, as well as serving as a base for its future planning and the widening of its circles of influence. For this purpose, the evaluation will examine the processes and factors influencing the degree to which the objectives are achieved. In order to fulfill these functions, the evaluation focuses on three elements: 1.       Rationale – examining the action model and guiding principles at the foundation of the program, and their suitability to the needs of the target population on one hand, and the aims of the program, on the other. 2.       Implementation – Referring to inputs and processes undergone during the program implementation – their characteristics, quality and contribution to the achievement of the program's goals. 3.       Effectiveness – Examines changes participants go through at various stages of the process, according to the expectations derived from the program's goals. Beside the planned outcomes, unplanned ones may be observed. In the present context, the evaluation will focus on immediate results and outputs of the program rather than on long-term ones. Main Evaluation Questions: ○ What is the theoretical basis for the program's objectives? Is there a distinction in the objectives with regard to Jewish participants and Muslim participants? ○ What is the degree of coherence between objectives? Is there an inherent conflict between them? ○ What are operative measures chosen for the attainment of the program's objectives? ○ Is there coherence between the program's stated objectives, the goals of the plan of action, the needs of the target population and the stated means of reaching the goals?   Implementation ○ What processes characterize the program? What factors influence these processes? ○ What is the degree of congruence between the program's implementation and the original work plan? To what degree were changes made in the program's structure and format, and what were the reasons for such changes? ○ Did unexpected problems arise in the course of the program's operation? What were they and how can they be overcome and prevented in the future? ○ In what way and to what extent do the various components of the program contribute to the processes undergone by the participants? Can one distinguish a differential effectiveness of different program components? Are there components that were found to be more effective than others? ○ To what degree did the program, on the whole, meet the expectations of its participants? ○ Which factors are conducive to the realization of the program's goals and  which are inhibitive factors? ○ Is it possible to improve the efficiency of the program's operation?  Short-Term Effectiveness Evaluation: ○ Did the program achieve its objectives among the participants – i.e. Jewish and Muslim principals of schools in Jerusalem? (attitude changes toward the “other”, establishment of inter-personal links, level of inter-cultural cooperation and connections, inter-religious cooperation, etc.). ○ To what extent was the program able to form an educational leadership cadre, able to lead processes within schools and communities? ○ Did the program result in any unplanned products and benefits? If so, what are they and what is their significance for the program?   Evaluation Method Methods for data collection and analysis: In order to provide a full, comprehensive picture of the evaluation subject, the evaluation combines both qualitative evaluation tools (interviews, analysis of documents, observations) and quantitative tools (pre- and post-questionnaires and feedback forms).  Evaluation tools and data resources:   1. Ongoing discussions and meetings with the program staff (program director, group facilitators, administrative coordinator, Consultant and Supervisor for the facilitators) for planning, feedback, consultation, and collaborative thinking about the development of the program;  2.         Observation of all encounters in both tracks of the program (principals and teachers) by two evaluators, one Jewish and one Muslim;  3. Interviews of program participants for the understanding of the processes they undergo during the program and the interpretation they give to these processes.  4.         Administration of questionnaires to participants both at the beginning of the program and at its conclusion (pre–post), in order to examine the participants' expectations of the program, their motives for participation, and the extent to which the program is attaining its goals;  5.         Administration of feedback questionnaires to participants during the program, in order to measure satisfaction and identify matters in need of improvement and change; 6. Ongoing discussions with program facilitators for planning, feedback, consultation and joint thinking on program development;  7.             Analysis of program documents and records (e.g., planning documents, activity reports, and documents monitoring participation);  8.             Survey of relevant literature on similar programs around the world or with similar target population.     Evaluation Reports:   Three evaluation reports were to be submitted: Interim Report No. 1 – covering the first 6 months of year 1 – submitted January 2007 Interim Report No. 2 – covering the last 6 months of year 1 – submitted June 2007 Final Report – Summarizing evaluation findings pertaining to program effectiveness. Scheduled for submission January 2008.