the extent of a problem, you should be able to produce a reasonable baseline from which to measure any change arising from your activity. Principle 2: We have clarity about the difference we wish to make By applying Principle 1, you should have a clear idea of the nature of the need for change. If you are vague about the nature of the change you want, then you will find it impossible to measure if you have achieved it. The next step is to set out your vision of the nature of the change needed in an outcome statement. This that’s represents outcomes in a of approach. ‘theory change’ Outcomes and outputs are frequently confused. Charitable think tank New Philanthropy Capital (Kazimirski et al., 2016) define outputs as or ‘products, services facilities that result from an or and outcomes as organisation’s project’s activities’, learning or other effects that result from what the project or ‘the changes, benefits, organisation makes, offers or provides’. Outcome statements are essentially a description of the desired change. For example, delivering anti-prejudice interventions have increased ‘organisations capacity to evaluate the change they is a statement of outcome. make’ For the purposes of evaluation, outcomes should be specific enough to be measurable, and for change to be reasonably attributable to the intervention. Broader outcomes of societal change and to be unsuitable for ‘world peace’ tend project design, or for evaluation at project level. They might be worthwhile having in a statement as a reminder of our long-term aspiration, but be achievable by, or won’t attributable to, a single intervention. Outcomes for anti-prejudice interventions should, as far as possible, specify the protected characteristic that they intend to affect. It can be tempting to focus on less specific ideas of equality and prejudice, but change in these concepts can be more difficult to demonstrate than change in a specific circumstance associated with a specific protected characteristic. While these broader changes in values or attitudes may be desirable, it is exceptionally difficult to generate baseline data on existing levels of non-specific prejudice, and therefore difficult to confidently measure change. If you want to have a manageable evaluation process, it is wise to choose fewer outcomes. This may mean prioritising the outcomes that you wish to invest in aluating. The New Philanthropy Capital approach to planning evaluation ‘four pillar’
the extent of a problem, you should be able to produce a reasonable baseline from which to measure any change arising from your activity. Principle 2: We have clarity about the difference we wish to make By applying Principle 1, you should have a clear idea of the nature of the need for change. If you are vague about the nature of the change you want, then you will find it impossible to measure if you have achieved it. The next step is to set out your vision of the nature of the change that’s needed in an outcome statement. This represents outcomes in a ‘theory of change’ approach. Outcomes and outputs are frequently confused. Charitable think tank New Philanthropy Capital (Kazimirski et al., 2016) define outputs as ‘products, services or facilities that result from an organisation’s or project’s activities’, and outcomes as ‘the changes, benefits, learning or other effects that result from what the project or organisation makes, offers or provides’. Outcome statements are essentially a description of the desired change. For example, ‘organisations delivering anti-prejudice interventions have increased capacity to evaluate the change they make’ is a statement of outcome. For the purposes of evaluation, outcomes should be specific enough to be measurable, and for change to be reasonably attributable to the intervention. Broader outcomes of societal change and ‘world peace’ tend to be unsuitable for project design, or for evaluation at project level. They might be worthwhile having in a statement as a reminder of our long-term aspiration, but won’t be achievable by, or attributable to, a single intervention. Outcomes for anti-prejudice interventions should, as far as possible, specify the protected characteristic that they intend to affect. It can be tempting to focus on less specific ideas of equality and prejudice, but change in these concepts can be more difficult to demonstrate than change in a specific circumstance associated with a specific protected characteristic. While these broader changes in values or attitudes may be desirable, it is exceptionally difficult to generate baseline data on existing levels of non-specific prejudice, and therefore difficult to confidently measure change. If you want to have a manageable evaluation process, it is wise to choose fewer outcomes. This may mean prioritising the outcomes that you wish to invest in aluating. The New Philanthropy Capital ‘four pillar’ approach to planning evaluation
prejudice-unlawful-behaviour-guide-to-evaluation.docx