Agenda Package - City of Vernon

Evaluation of Homelessness Strategy for the North Okanagan
7.
8.
The assignment of responsibilities (accountability) to individuals and individual agencies
is especially well thought-out. The Partners in Action team approach to challenges is an
especia I ly effective format.
The plan included broad recommendations in respect to regular monitoring and the
evaluation of progress though these processes themselves were not formalized in the
plan, as in when/how is implementation progress reported and how might this regular
monitoring and assessment translate into action/revised action. This is not to say
reporting didn't take place, e.g. via action teams, but the connection to the strategic
plan wasn't clear and neither was the connection back to the vision.
5.2
P erformance Evaluation"
"One of the greot mìstakes in evaluotions rs to iudge policies and progroms by
their intentions rather thøn their results"
ln terms of measuring performance, a meaningful evaluation of the 2007 Homelessness
Strategy does not lend itself to a singular, straightforward approach. By way of explanation,
performance is usually best evaluated/measured against pre-defined targets, which in turn are
logically derived from well articulated goals and objectives. ldeally these targets (usually
developed from a baseline of data representing what is and extrapolated to what we would like
it to be) and the activities (action plans) undertaken to achieve them are measurable or
quantifiable. This does not mean that the activity or even the target must be quantitative (e.9.
L0% decrease in the numbers of homeless from 1,200 to 1,000) but it must be measurable and
meaningful (e.g. we want to improve shelter services to the homeless and that improvement is
represented by some proxy such as an increase in the number of shelter beds made available
(we want to provide an additional 1.00) and their usage lfromT5%to95% capacity usage)).
Of course because some targets and some activities might not be readily measurable, or
even in the absence of a base line and post activity measurement, this is not to say no
performance occurs or there is no progress towards the vision. lt simply means that progress
lacks a clear definition. This seems to be a challenge to the task at hand. As such we have
chosen to utilize a combination of three approaches to measure, or perhaps more accurately
assess performance. These approaches include the following: (1) a review of efforts relative to
tt To ensure there is a common understanding of the use and application of the term "performance evaluation"
within this ass¡gnment, four critical terms require specific agreement/definition: (1) oerformance - the degree to
which an activity or intervention and/or a partner/agency/authority operates according to specific
criteria/standard/guidelines or achieves results in accordance with stated plans; (2) performance indicator - a
quantitat¡ve or qualitative variable that allows the verification of changes produced by an activity or intervention
relative to what was planned; (3) benchmark - a reference point or standard against which progress or achievements
can be assessed; (4) performance measurement - a system for assessing the performance of activities or
interventions, partnerships or policy reforms relative to what was planned, in terms of the achievement of outputs
and outcomes. Performance measurement relies upon the collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of data
for performance indicators.
LF';
f.n¡¿al
-- rfl¡d -
Lochaven Management Consultants Ltd.
November 2010
Page 31
l- 00