7 THE CIPP MODEL FOR

PROGRAM EVALUATION
Daniel L. Stufflebeam

The most important purpose ofprogram

evaluation is not to prove but to improve

This chapter is a review and update of the so-called CIPP ModeP for evaluation.
That model (Stufflebeam, 1966) was developed in the late 1960s as one alternative
to the views about evaluations that were most prevalent at that time - those
oriented to objectives, testing, and experimental design. It emerged with other
new conceptualizations, especially those developed by Scriven (1966) and Stake
(1967). (For a discussion of these historical developments, see Chapter 1 of this
book.) The CIPP approach was applied in many institutions; for example, the
Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory in Austin, Texas; the National Center
for Vocational and Technical Education; the U.S. Office of Education; and the
school districts in Columbus, Toledo, and Cincinnati, Ohio; Dallas, Forth Worth,
Houston, and Austin, Texas; and Saginaw, Detriot, and Lansing, Michigan. It was
the subject of research and development by Adams (1971), Findlay (1979), Nevo
(1974), Reinhard (1972), Root (1971), Webster (1975), and others. It was the
central topic of the International Conference on the Evaluation of Physical Educa-
tion held in Jyvaskyla, Finland in 1976 and was used as the advance organizer to
group the evaluations that were presented and discussed during that week-long
conference. It was also the central topic of the Eleventh National Phi Delta Kappa
Symposium on Educational Research, and, throughout the 1970s it was referenced
117
G. F. Madaus et al., Evaluation Models
Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing 1983
118 MODELSANDCONCffinUAUZATIONS

in many conferences and pUblications. It was most fully explicated in the Phi Delta
Kappa book, Educational Evaluation and Decision Making (Stufflebeam et al.,
1971) and most fully implemented in the Dallas Independent School District. Its
conceptual and operational fonns have evolved in response to critiques, applica-
tions, research, and parallel developments; and it continues to be referenced and
applied in education and other fields.
The CIPP approach is based on the view that the most important purpose of
evaluation is not to prove but to improve. It is a move against the view that
evaluations should be "witch hunts" or only instruments of accountability.
Instead it sees evaluation as a tool by which to help make programs work better for
the people they are intended to serve. This position is consistent with those
recently presented by Patton (1978) and Cronbach and Associates (1980). How-
ever, the orientation of this chapter is not intended to discount the likelihood that
some programs are unworthy of efforts to improve them and thus should be
tenninated. By promoting the demise of unneeded or hopelessly flawed programs,
evaluations also serve an improvement function by helping to free resources for
allocation to more worthy efforts. Fundamentally, the use of the CIPP Model is
intended to promote growth and to help the responsible leadership and staff of an
institution systematically to obtain and use feedback so as to excel in meeting
important needs, or, at least, to do the best they can with the available resources.
The purpose of this chapter is to present an up-to-date interpretation of the CIPP
Model. Especially, it is intended to convey background infonnation and a general
guide to anyone who is interested in applying the approach. I will begin by setting
the CIPP approach in its historical context to show how and why it was developed
and how it came to have its current fonn. I will analyze how it is similar to and
different from other major conceptualizations and how they have influenced its
evaluation. I will underscore its main orientation towards fostering improvement
and will characterize its potential role in assisting institutions to improve their
services. I will provide an up-to-date overview of its main concepts. Finally, I will
describe a structure for designing evaluation studies.

Development of the CIPP Model

CIPP was conceptualized as a result of attempts to evaluate projects that had been
funded through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).
This act provided billions of dollars to school districts throughout the United States
for the purpose of improving the education of disadvantaged students and, more
generally, for upgrading the total system of elementary and secondary education.
The act also required educators to evaluate their funded projects. This requirement
created a crisis, since educators were not prepared to design and conduct evalua-
tion studies. They lacked evaluation training and experience, and they soon found