Evaluation, Measurement, and Use of Evidence

Evidence-based strategies that focus on using evaluation, measurement, and evidence when developing initiatives. These strategies are also about using tools and data collection systems for assessing outcomes, aligning resource allocation decisions, and planning.

How to Navigate this Page

Select policy targets and evidence-based strategies that are priorities and achievable within your setting and sector. Align with your mandate, capacity, jurisdictional boundaries, and scope of practice.

Strategies marked with ☔ are important for populations-at-risk.

Entry Point for Action:
Reflects the organization’s or government unit’s sector scope and mandate

Policy Target:
Relates to the initiative’s focus

Evidence-based Strategies:
Concrete actions to guide initiatives’ design, delivery, and evaluation

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Provide Sustainable Funding to Programs and Services

Financial capability programs (i.e., attitude, knowledge, skills, and self-efficacy for dayto-day money management)

Government units provide funding and guidelines for financial capability programs that reflect a holistic approach to financial strain and financial wellbeing as well as the application of user-centered principles in the design, implementation, and evaluation of initiatives

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of financial capability programs using key performance indicators to measure success (e.g., change in participants’ self-rated or measured financial capability) that go beyond funder priorities (e.g., participation rates) and consider multiple aspects of people’s lives
Number/percentage of financial capability programs that address the social and structural determinants of people’s financial circumstances

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Simplify Access to Benefits & Services

Contingencies and penalties for social welfare receipt

Government units utilize evidence-informed requirements for participation in the social protection system. For example, government units rely on updated evidence-based reports assessing how welfare conditionality influences effectiveness and rapport building with recipients ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of initiatives referring to data and statistics as part of the rationale for their scope and requirements
Number/percentage of initiatives that discuss effectiveness relative to welfare conditionality

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Budget for Wellbeing

Wellbeing indicators

Initiatives incorporate reproducible, simple wellbeing metrics (e.g., happiness) and reliable tools into their decision-making process, including definition of priorities and actions and wellbeing budget planning

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of initiatives with an understanding that economic success goes beyond personal wealth and includes health and wellbeing
Number/percentage of initiatives using wellbeing measures, such as self-reported life satisfaction, quality of life, trust in government units, and community engagement

Wellbeing in policy-making

Government units use wellbeing evidence in policy-making

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Effectiveness of public spending with respect to overall wellbeing outcomes

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Assess and Measure Long-Term Impacts

Long-term outcomes

Initiatives move beyond the assessment of short- and medium-term outcomes to also include impacts over the long-term (e.g., within four years or beyond the term of current governments)

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of government units or organizations with protocols detailing how and which measures will be used to assess long-term outcomes

Initiatives assess the long-term benefits that accrue to the individual and to society, examining the magnitude and extent to which their actions impacted living conditions, health status, and overall wellbeing at individual and population levels.

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Gross National Happiness Index (e.g., before and after implementation of federal initiatives)
Levels of life satisfaction (e.g., before and after implementation of an initiative)
Self-reported health status (e.g., before and after implementation of an initiative)
Trends of preventable hospitalization (e.g., stratified by socioeconomic status or race/ethnicity)
Trends of prevalence rates of substance misuse
Median after-tax income of households (e.g., before and after implementation of an initiative)

Data collection

Initiatives use routine, reliable administrative data for assessment, when appropriate. Initiatives ensure (i) modernized data collection systems and linkage procedures are in place and (ii) data are up-to-date and can be linked with other databases

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of government units or organizations releasing reports with current statistics
Number/percentage of government units or organizations reporting associations between socioeconomic and cultural factors and financial strain or financial wellbeing

Initiatives seek to implement data collection systems that support long-term assessment where administrative data is unavailable or incomplete

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Availability of new ongoing or periodic databases
Availability of qualitative data to contextualize statistics

Relevant and comprehensive demographic and socioeconomic data (e.g., race/ethnicity, sex, gender, socioeconomic status, immigration status) is routinely collected to allow for stratified analysis to better understand different groups’ needs ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Availability of systematic collection of data categorizing identities and backgrounds
Number/percentage of governments or organizations presenting stratified or targeted data analysis

Measurement of differential impacts

Initiatives conduct stratified analyses to determine differential long-term impacts (magnitude and direction) across population groups with the objective of minimizing social inequalities ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of government units and organizations reporting social inequalities (e.g., from the most to the least disadvantaged groups)
Number/percentage of government units and organizations referring to updated, evidence-based reports on inequalities in their decision-making process

Initiatives simplify assessment methods and publish protocols to support reproducibility and comparability across jurisdictions and over time

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of initiatives with available step-by-step guidelines describing their assessment methods in detail
Number/percentage of initiatives with open access, or otherwise publicly available, protocols

Funding allocation

Initiatives set aside budget and resources, including for staff and training, to conduct long-term assessments

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of staff agreeing with the statement that long-term assessments occur at the time expected
Number/percentage of staff reporting that initiatives apply evaluation findings about long-term impacts to refine activities

Assessment of long-term impacts to guide future funding

Long-term cost-effectiveness of initiatives support definition of funding priorities and decision-making regarding allocation of funds (e.g., budgetary expenditures or priorities)

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Availability of reports presenting analysis weighing the costs of investments and potential returns or value to society (e.g., tax base growth)
Number/percentage of initiatives using long-term or cost-effectiveness evidence to guide decisions about budget allocation, particularly when considering expenditure reduction
Stakeholders’ perceptions on the clarity and sufficiency of information provided in the initiatives’ cost-effectiveness reports to make independent and critical evaluations viable
Stakeholders’ perceptions on data transparency (e.g., within organizations and government units)

Government units prioritize the use of simple measures (e.g., rate of return for every dollar investment in the initiative) to assess long-term impacts and to support budget negotiation, including informed decision-making on how much, how long, and where to allocate resources

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Reports of initiatives contain easy to calculate and interpretable economic metrics of long-term impacts
Availability of reports for third parties

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Promote Neighbourhood-Level Advantage

Safety, security, diversity, and quality of local services and amenities

Government units and organizations collect neighbourhood-level data (e.g., crime rates, quality of and access to green spaces, access to public transportation)

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Availability of open-access or public-access databases
Periodic reports present updated findings on the inequalities among neighbourhoods and make recommendations for action

ENTRY POINT FOR ACTION

Develop around People’s Everyday Realities

Back-to-work support services

Initiatives analyze not only the effectiveness of work contingencies, but also their impact on each population group, particularly seeking to reveal what kinds of employment disadvantaged groups are finding when re-entering in the workforce ☔

SAMPLE INDICATORS

Number/percentage of people experiencing disabilities who report not feeling obligated to accept low quality and insecure jobs with reduced benefits for fear of losing social support
Number/percentage of participants who secure sufficient and sustained employment (e.g., stratified by deprivation level)
Number/percentage of staff who believe evaluation of individual labour market prospects are fair and match with people’s work-experience and education
Number/percentage of initiatives with instruments and tools in place to capture people’s feedback on the impact of work contingencies on their trajectories to find well-paid, secure jobs
Ratio of effectiveness of programs and services with more work contingencies to that of programs and services with less work contingencies in terms of helping people reaching their goals