If there is a mismatch between tutors' ratings of a particular area and the rating in the same area of the Program Questionnaire, then some analysis has to be done to account for the discrepancy.

If there are no major discrepancies but ratings are low, or areas are missing, then some discussion about adjustments and priorities for the next year has to take place. This is where resourceful and imaginative planning come into play.

It is very easy, as one works through the Program Questionnaire to say "time and money" are what are required to help the program improve. While this will probably be true in many cases, it is too gross a simplification. A serious analysis of the program and the stated conditions may reveal several comparatively easy things which could be done with a little thought and planning. These may not necessarily require a great outlay of funds or personnel resources, but if implemented will show that the program has taken the results of the evaluation seriously.

For instance, if there are several volunteers waiting to be matched with a learner, are there some other ways they might be employed on the program to keep them interested in the program? Perhaps they could design some promotional material, or create some instructional games or devices. There may be some help they could give to the coordinator in the office. If the tutoring site is inaccessible to some learners because of weather conditions and distance, have you explored all possibilities within the community for a more accessible site whose use might be donated? Is record-keeping a weakness? Then making a start on improving in this area shows progress is being made.

Many of the things suggested in the conditions may never be possible in some situations. Larger programs have some advantage over smaller ones in the things that they may be able to accomplish. The point is, however, that you feel you are doing the best you can in your circumstances. Larger, well-established programs may suffer from other problems - complacency and insufficient follow-up or monitoring of matched pairs. The evaluation process here may lead to some brainstorming and new ways to rejuvenate aspects of the program.

After the realistic changes have been decided upon, you may indeed want to dream and develop proposals to sustain the program at a higher level. The evaluation should help you target the areas for growth and help in the development of a multi-year plan for funding proposals. Such proposals however need to be checked against your local community needs and circumstances. There is no point in doing a huge awareness campaign, for instance, unless you know you have the capacity to respond. Some coordinators are already stretched to the limits with the number of matched pairs they can comfortably handle and support. It would be irresponsible to add more pairs unless additional resources are assured. There is much talk about optimum ratios of matched pairs per coordinator. A general rule of thumb seems to be a maximum ranging from 25 to 40 pairs for one paid full-time equivalent staff person.

In the final analysis, how you use your results is for you to decide, but share your results with your administration or your sponsors. Discuss next steps with them. If everything turns out to be fine this year, share the good news too. Use your positive evaluation results as a lever for continued recognition of the program by the funders and sponsors.