Download the full Evaluation Guide as a pdf documentAnnex 2
Costs and benefits of public engagementSome of the benefits of participation
| Goals/purpose | Possible indicators | How to get data | Important assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social justice | Has this initiative helped increase equality of access to decisionmaking or services? | Collecting data on the individuals involved, through questionnaires etc. | |
| Quality of services / projects: Public service improvement |
Has this initiative saved money by making public services more reflective of local needs, and not spending money on unwanted services? | Comparison of views expressed and changes made to policy and practice; via analysis of initiative reports and proposed changes. | It should not be expected that all proposals made in public engagement exercises will be taken on; although explanations of 'why not?' will be needed if they are not taken on. |
| Reduced management and maintenance costs | Can costs be saved by reducing vandalism because people feel protective / a sense of ownership and will look after things?
Can the costs of damage to facilities be reduced because people use new facilities more effectively because they better understand what / who they are for as a result of involvement? |
Collecting costs of maintenance of projects that used participatory methods, and comparing these with conventional project maintenance costs.
Collecting costs of damage to facilities caused by lack of knowledge / care. |
Maintenance / costs of damage may not be collected in any detail currently; but these costs could be significantly reduced through good public participation.
As above. |
| Easier development of land and buildings, and other facilities | Has less time been taken up dealing with conflict over proposals for inappropriate development?
Has it been quicker to make decisions about development proposals? |
Collecting costs of dealing with conflict (e.g. time spent dealing with complaints, objections, campaigns etc).
As above |
Most of these costs will be staff time, levels of stress and sick leave etc, which may not normally be collected in this way.
As above |
| Co-production of shared outcomes | Has this initiative saved costs by encouraging people to take more responsibility for their own good health / illness? | Examples of new community-led initiatives Feedback from patients and doctors |
Cost savings will only ever be part of the real value of increased coproduction; but it will be useful to start collective evidence on this. |
| Capacity building / learning Increased participant skills, abilities, confidence | Has the initiative encouraged participants to go on to do other projects with more confidence?
Has the initiative led to people going on to formal training / gaining qualifications? |
Interviews with participants later on in the process.
As above. |
The growing confidence and skills of active citizens is understood to contribute to a stronger voluntary sector, and to stronger communities. |
| Increased staff skills | Has the initiative enabled staff to run the next exercise without external consultants? | Collecting details of who is involved in running participatory exercises. | Using external people may also be a benefit (e.g. to reassure participants of independence etc). |
| Stronger communities | Has the initiative increased the strength of the voluntary and community sectors? | Interviews with people in the voluntary and community sectors after the event. | |
| Raised awareness | Do the participants have a better awareness / understanding of the issues involved as a result of the initiative? | Questionnaires and interviews with participants after the event. | The importance of participation as a learning experience can often be underestimated |