How do you measure the effectiveness of your program? There are several ways to do this, including analyzing your goals and objectives, using indicators, and comparing results across jurisdictions. We’ll also talk about C-Stat, which allows you to track program performance for each program. Ultimately, this will help you determine whether your programs deliver on their promises. But how do you get started? How do you decide which metrics to use?
Analyzing goals and objectives to measure program outcomes
For example, an increased number of trained law enforcement officers combating human trafficking could be an immediate or intermediate outcome. These outputs will be affected by the goals outlined in the planning model.
To create a report that will accurately measure the outcomes of your program, you should define your goals and objectives before you start assessing them with the help of an outcome software. This way, you will be sure that you are asking the right questions when it comes time to set up reporting. In addition, you must identify the mission of your program and the measures you’ll use to measure its success. While some objectives may be qualitative, quantitative measures are preferred by funders.
Using indicators
Indicators are measurable data used to track progress over time. They provide managers with the necessary information to make mid-course adjustments or validate program effectiveness. These indicators should be developed collaboratively with program staff, government counterparts, NGO partners, and key stakeholders. SMART indicators are specific, measurable, and time-based. They provide a standard benchmark to compare progress and success. The next step is to create indicators that can be used to evaluate and report program outcomes.
Indicators are used to measure the impact of development programs. They are generally developed for national programs but may be adapted for use in local contexts. Typically, a project targeting youth in a capital city will have a different population of interest. The same applies to adolescent programs in rural areas. Indicators can measure program impact, but it is essential to use appropriate terminology.
Comparing performance across jurisdictions
Using evidence-based practices and evaluating the impact of programs are essential for all jurisdictions. Performance measurement is a critical part of program evaluation, and results from such measures provide a foundation for evaluating the effectiveness of a given program. In addition, the results of performance measures reinforce the use of evidence-based practices and build accountability in service systems. When comparing program outcomes, jurisdictions may decide to measure the results of a specific intervention or cluster of interventions. For example, a motivational interviewing agency may want to compare its work to the performance of other jurisdictions or against standard practices.
POS-T is a tool that allows practitioners to evaluate performance outcomes to ensure face validity. By combining internal and external performance measures, POS-T provides a way to compare program outcomes in contexts with diverse confounding factors. This is exemplified by evaluating CO2 emissions reduction across 36 OECD member nations. The evaluation methodology is also flexible, allowing practitioners to adjust for local conditions and compare results with other jurisdictions.
Using C-Stat
The Colorado Department of Human Services recently discussed family support and coaching programs, also known as home visiting programs. The agency discovered that despite the efforts to measure program outcomes, many factors in implementing these programs contributed to their lack of success. To measure program outcomes, the Colorado Department of Human Services outlined process measures related to program implementation that are critical precursors to program objectives, such as timeliness of services and compliance with statutory requirements.
Using C-Stat, the Colorado Department of Human Services exchanges information with 64 counties to monitor the performance of department-supervised programs. In addition, executives in the department regularly meet with programmatic office leaders to discuss performance data. This approach helps agencies measure progress by identifying areas where programs and services could be improved. It also allows agencies to understand what is working well and needs improvement. This information helps the agency develop strategies to improve program outcomes.
