Measuring the Performance and Impact of Community Indicators Systems: Insights on frameworks and examples of key performance indicators
Community indicator systems (CISs) are growing in number across North America, Europe, and Australia in an effort to improve evidence-based decision-making in government, business, and civil society.
By providing open access to data and information on community well-being, CISs generally aim to build the knowledge and capacity of communities to work together to improve well-being. However, there is currently a dearth of research on the extent to which CISs are achieving positive impacts on community well-being. Similarly, the research on monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems and best practices of CISs is limited. Hence, CISs currently have few resources to which they can turn to design and improve upon their evaluative practices and overall program performance.
This exploratory study addresses this research gap on the M&E practices and procedures in use by CISs, asking: What key performance indicators are CISs using to measure program outcomes and impacts on the community?
You might also be interested in
Produced Capital in Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Trinidad and Tobago
Part of comprehensive wealth, produced capital is the value of the stock of all human-made assets used to produce goods and services in the economy.
Financial Capital in Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Trinidad and Tobago
Like other assets of the comprehensive wealth portfolio, financial capital can be used to support a country's long-term prosperity.
Human Capital in Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Trinidad and Tobago
Human capital is the major component of comprehensive wealth in most countries, and how it is managed is key to long-term prosperity.
Natural Capital in Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Trinidad and Tobago
Natural resources play fundamental roles in our well-being and lives, as well as sustaining a country's comprehensive wealth.