{"id":960,"date":"2026-03-12T15:10:18","date_gmt":"2026-03-12T15:10:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/?page_id=960"},"modified":"2026-03-25T10:53:46","modified_gmt":"2026-03-25T14:53:46","slug":"toolkit-definitions","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/toolkit-definitions\/","title":{"rendered":"Toolkit Definitions"},"content":{"rendered":"\t\t<div data-elementor-type=\"wp-page\" data-elementor-id=\"960\" class=\"elementor elementor-960\" data-elementor-post-type=\"page\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-2064449 e-flex e-con-boxed e-con e-parent\" data-id=\"2064449\" data-element_type=\"container\" data-e-type=\"container\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"e-con-inner\">\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-e430217 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"e430217\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><strong>About these definitions<\/strong><\/p><p>These definitions support shared plain language understanding for key terms across CSWB partners. The definitions are based on CCFSC\u2019s experience with capacity building within the sector, adapted from several reliable Canadian and Indigenous sources, including:<\/p><ul><li>Statistics Canada<\/li><li>The Canadian Evaluation Society<\/li><li>The Tri\u2011Council Policy Statement on Research Ethics (TCPS2)<\/li><li>Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (Policy on Results)<\/li><li>OCAP\u00ae principles from the First Nations Information Governance Centre<\/li><\/ul><p>This will be treated as a living resource that can evolve as the CCFSC evaluation team continues to expand our practice.\u00a0The focus has been on M&amp;E related terms that come up within this toolkit. Please feel free to <a href=\"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/contact\/\">reach out<\/a> if you think there are key terms we\u2019ve missed or misrepresented. \u00a0<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-811f055 elementor-widget elementor-widget-heading\" data-id=\"811f055\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"heading.default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t<h2 class=\"elementor-heading-title elementor-size-default\"><br>Monitoring &amp; Evaluation: Key Terms<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-cda0221 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"cda0221\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<p><strong>Monitoring <\/strong>\u2014 the systematic collection of information to track progress about an intervention over time, often part of performance measurement. Monitoring is typically used to:<\/p><ul><li>Track whether activities are being implemented as planned.<\/li><li>Identify emerging issues and support real-time course corrections.<\/li><\/ul><p><strong>Evaluation <\/strong>\u2014 a more in\u2011depth, systematic assessment of the design, implementation or results of a policy, service, or program. Evaluation is used to:<\/p><ul><li>Understand what is working (and why) and identify areas for improvement.<\/li><li>Support learning, accountability, and future policy or resource decisions.<\/li><\/ul><p><strong>Outputs<\/strong> \u2014 Direct products or services resulting from activities (e.g., number of participants, number of referrals).<\/p><p><strong>Outcomes<\/strong> \u2014 \u00a0Changes in knowledge, behaviours, conditions, or systems that occur as a result of an initiative\u2019s activities. Outcomes may be categorized by time frame (short\u2011, medium\u2011, or long\u2011term) or by who or what is changing (e.g., people, groups, organizations, or systems).<\/p><p><strong>Impact<sup><a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a><\/sup><\/strong> \u2014 Longer\u2011term or systems\u2011level change aligned with CSWB goals.<\/p><p><strong>Effectiveness<\/strong> \u2014 The degree to which an initiative achieves its intended outcomes.<\/p><p><strong>Monitoring<\/strong><strong> and\/or Evaluation<\/strong> <strong>Plan<\/strong> \u2014 A short, practical document that outlines what a CSWB initiative will track and learn, how data will be collected and interpreted, and how findings will inform decisions. A typical plan includes core components such as evaluation or learning questions, a logic model and\/or theory of change, a data development framework, a workplan or other source of roles and responsibilities, details about reporting and communications, and any required equity, ethics, or privacy considerations.<\/p><ul><li><strong>Logic Model<\/strong> \u2014 A structured, simplified list of program elements, typically in a table showing the linear sequence of inputs \u2192 activities \u2192 outputs \u2192 outcomes. It summarizes what the program does and its expected results.<\/li><li><strong>Theory of Change<\/strong> \u2014 A visual description and (ideally) an accompanying written narrative that explains how\u202fand\u202fwhy\u202fa program is\u202fexpected\u202fto achieve\u202fits\u202fintended\u202foutcomes. This helps visualize or describe the \u201ccausal chain,\u201d and is supported by capturing other nuances, including underlying rationale\/ evidence, assumptions, and external factors.<\/li><li><strong>Evaluation or learning questions<\/strong> \u2014 Focused questions that guide what an evaluation aims to learn.<\/li><li><strong>Data development framework <\/strong>\u2014 A planning tool that maps CSWB priorities, desired outcomes, indicators, possible measures, potential data sources and collection methods to determine what is feasible now and what can be developed over time. It helps communities balance indicator coverage (community, service, and population-level data), prioritize publicly available or easy-to-collect measures, identify partnership needs, and plan roles, ownership, and status of each indicator.<\/li><\/ul><p><strong>Indicator<\/strong> \u2014 A factor or variable used to assess progress on the state of an outcome.<\/p><ul><li><strong><span class=\"emphasis\">Toolkit-specific definition<\/span><\/strong>\u00a0<strong>Core Indicators \u2014 <\/strong>A set of priority measures identified through the Community &amp; Urban Safety Monitoring (CUSM) Project as foundational for monitoring CSWB across diverse Canadian contexts.<\/li><li><strong><span class=\"emphasis\">Toolkit-specific definition<\/span><\/strong> \u00a0<strong>Headline Indicators \u2014<\/strong>\u00a0A small set of high\u2011value indicators identified by any community that best reflect their core CSWB priorities. These indicators should be meaningful to both community partners and decision makers, as well as feasible and reliable to track in the near term.<\/li><\/ul><p><strong>Measure<\/strong> \u2014 A specific, trackable articulation of an indicator that can be quantified or qualified (e.g., % of shelters within a region at capacity).<\/p><ul><li><strong>Proxy measure<\/strong> \u2014 A measure used as a stand-in when the ideal measure is not available (e.g., School attendance as a proxy for youth engagement and connectedness; calls to crisis lines as a proxy for mental health stressors in the community).<\/li><\/ul><p><strong>Baseline<\/strong> \u2014 The starting point or initial measurement against which future progress is compared.<\/p><p><strong>Benchmark<\/strong> \u2014 A reference point, target, or comparison value (e.g., provincial average, national rate).<\/p><p><strong>Contribution<\/strong>\u00a0 \u2014 The influence an initiative has on outcomes in a complex system, without claiming sole causation.<\/p><hr \/><p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> <em>In some evaluation contexts, \u201cimpact\u201d refers to the attributable difference caused by a specific program, measured through experimental or quasi\u2011experimental methods (e.g., comparison groups). These approaches are rarely feasible or appropriate in most CSWB contexts, where change is multi\u2011factorial and emerges through collective action. For this toolkit, \u201cimpact\u201d refers to longer\u2011term, system\u2011level shifts aligned with CSWB goals, rather than causal attribution.<\/em><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<div class=\"elementor-element elementor-element-de65687 elementor-widget elementor-widget-text-editor\" data-id=\"de65687\" data-element_type=\"widget\" data-e-type=\"widget\" data-widget_type=\"text-editor.default\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<h2>Data Types &amp; Levels<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Community\u2011level data<\/strong> \u2014 Views and experiences shared directly by community members (e.g., ongoing barriers to employment described by residents).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Service\u2011level data<\/strong> \u2014 Information about clients, activities, and performance within programs or agencies (e.g., number of youth enrolled in a program).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Population\u2011level data<\/strong> \u2014 Data describing the entire population in a geographic area, larger than any single service system (e.g., local unemployment rate).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Quantitative data <\/strong>\u2014 Information recorded in standardized units that support counting, measuring, or ordered comparison, such as counts, rates, proportions, scales, time trends, cross-tabulations, correlations, etc. They provide a consistent way to track change over time, compare results across populations, and benchmark against regional or national figures.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong>Qualitative data <\/strong>\u2014 Information captured as words, narratives, observations, or images that illuminate meaning, context, and experience. Provide the nuance that complements and explains what the numbers show. These may be collected via interviews, sharing circles, focus groups, observation, open-ended survey responses, storytelling, etc.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Aggregate data<\/strong> \u2014 Data combined into groups or totals.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Disaggregate data<\/strong> \u2014 Data broken down by categories such as age, gender, income, identity, or neighbourhood, when safe and appropriate.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Mixed Methods<\/strong> \u2014 Using both quantitative and qualitative data to provide a fuller understanding of trends, context, and lived experience.<\/p>\n<h3>&nbsp;<\/h3>\n<h2>Data Collection &amp; Data Sources<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Sampling <\/strong>\u2014 The approach used to decide who or what will be included in data collection. Sampling methods can be purposeful (e.g., speaking with specific groups or communities), convenience based (e.g., those easiest to reach, or via connections using \u201csnowball\u201d approaches), or random, depending on the goals, context, and equity considerations of the project.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Honoraria<\/strong> \u2014 Money, gift-cards or other items of value offered to recognize a person\u2019s time, knowledge, and contributions during evaluation or engagement activities. Honoraria are a form of reciprocity and should reflect local expectations and guidance from the community involved.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Administrative data<\/strong> \u2014 A common type of service-level data; routinely collected as part of delivering services or programs (e.g., intake forms, case notes, service usage records) that can be used for M&amp;E.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Surveys <\/strong>\u2014 Structured questionnaires used to collect standardized information from residents, clients, or partners, often through online, phone, or in\u2011person formats.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Interviews <\/strong>\u2014 Conversations used to gather in\u2011depth qualitative insights from individuals or small groups (e.g., 1\u20133 people from a similar role or organization), using guided or semi\u2011structured questions.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Focus groups <\/strong>\u2014 Facilitated discussions with small groups to explore shared experiences, priorities, or perspectives on a topic.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Sharing circles <\/strong>\u2014 A relational, culturally grounded approach, traditionally used in many Indigenous communities, that brings participants together in a respectful circle format to share experiences, insights, and teachings. Sharing circles intentionally disrupt Western power dynamics in research, monitoring, or evaluation by having everyone sit together in a way that emphasizes equality, respect, and collective voice.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Community engagement <\/strong>\u2014 Information drawn from community conversations, open houses, or other participatory methods.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Third-party or public datasets <\/strong>\u2014 Data compiled and released by organizations such as Statistics Canada, Public Safety Canada, or provincial ministries (e.g., Census, police-reported crime, health indicators).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Observation <\/strong>\u2014 Direct watching or documenting of activities, environments, or interactions (e.g., safety audits, program observations).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Document review <\/strong>\u2014 Using existing materials such as reports, policies, meeting minutes, or case notes as data sources for analysis.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Environmental scans <\/strong>\u2014 Systematic reviews of contextual information such as demographic trends, housing markets, or service availability.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Literature review <\/strong>\u2014 A structured process of collecting and synthesizing research, reports, and existing evidence to inform context, practice, or evaluation design.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Digital or sensor data <\/strong>\u2014 Information collected through automated systems (e.g., foot traffic counters, incident reporting apps).<\/p>\n<h2>&nbsp;<\/h2>\n<h2>Data Quality &amp; Management<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Data collection<\/strong> \u2014 Gathering information using surveys, interviews, administrative data, or other methods.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data entry<\/strong> \u2014 Inputting data into a database or system.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data integrity<\/strong> \u2014 Ensuring data is accurate, complete, and consistent.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data cleaning<\/strong> \u2014 Identifying and correcting errors, missing values, or inconsistencies.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data dictionary<\/strong> \u2014 A reference source that defines each data element to support consistency across partners and over time.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Quality assurance<\/strong> \u2014 Procedures put in place <em>before<\/em> and <em>during<\/em> data collection to prevent errors and support consistent processes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Quality control<\/strong> \u2014 Activities that occur <em>during or after<\/em> data collection to detect and correct errors and maintain accuracy.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data stewardship<\/strong> \u2014 Responsible management of data across its lifecycle, including privacy, security, quality, and ethical use.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Data steward or champion <\/strong>\u2014 Individual(s) responsible for leading and supporting data stewardship within an organization or partnership.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Data governance <\/strong>\u2014 The policies, processes, and roles that guide how data is managed, accessed, protected, and used across partners.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data access <\/strong>\u2014 Permissions that determine who can view, use, or download specific datasets or results.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data analysis<\/strong> \u2014 The process of examining and organizing data to identify patterns, trends, and insights that help answer monitoring or evaluation questions.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Coding:<\/strong> Sorting qualitative information (e.g., quotes, notes, comments) into categories or themes so that patterns can be more easily identified and compared.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Triangulation: <\/strong>Using multiple data sources or methods to enrich interpretation and avoid misrepresentation.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Sense\u2011making:<\/strong> A collaborative process where partners interpret data together, bringing local knowledge and context to ensure findings are accurate, meaningful, and grounded in real\u2011world experience.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong>Data communication<\/strong> \u2014 The practice of sharing findings clearly and responsibly using formats such as reports, briefs, articles, stories, presentations, etc. Effective data communication tailors messages to different audiences and helps ensure insights are understood, trusted, and used for decision\u2011making.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Data visualization <\/strong>\u2014 The process of presenting data using charts, maps, dashboards, infographics, etc. to make patterns, trends, and insights easier to understand. Good visualization highlights what matters, supports accessibility, and helps audiences quickly grasp key messages.<\/p>\n<h2>&nbsp;<\/h2>\n<h2>Privacy, Ethics &amp; Indigenous Data Governance<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Positionality <\/strong>\u2014 An acknowledgement of how a person\u2019s background, identity, values, and experiences shape their perspectives, relationships, and interpretations in research, evaluation or engagement. Reflecting on positionality helps promote cultural humility, transparency, and awareness of power dynamics when working with communities.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Consent<\/strong> \u2014 An ongoing process that ensures participants understand how their information will be used and can revise or withdraw permissions at any time.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Privacy &amp; confidentiality<\/strong> \u2014 Duties to safeguard information, limit identifiability, and manage data sharing or linkage appropriately.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Tri\u2011Council Policy Statement on Research Ethics, Version 2 (TCPS 2)<\/strong> \u2014 A Canadian research ethics policy that sets out principles and guidance for conducting ethical research involving humans. It includes specific guidance for working respectfully with First Nations, Inuit, and M\u00e9tis Peoples (Chapter 9), emphasizing consent, reciprocity, community engagement, and cultural safety.<\/p>\n<p><strong>OCAP\u00ae Principles<\/strong> \u2014 Ownership, Control, Access, and Possession: foundational principles affirming First Nations data sovereignty from the First Nations Information Governance Centre.<\/p>\n<h2>&nbsp;<\/h2>\n<h2>CSWB\u2011Specific Terms<\/h2>\n<p><strong>Community assessment<\/strong> \u2014 Gathering information with partners and residents to understand local safety conditions, strengths, and concerns as the first stage of a CSWB planning process.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Risk &amp; protective factors<\/strong> \u2014 Conditions that increase risk (e.g., instability, discrimination) or enhance safety and well\u2011being (e.g., connection, housing stability).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Collective impact<\/strong> \u2014 An approach where multiple partners\/sectors commit to a common agenda, shared measurement, and coordinated action to address complex issues.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Equity\u2011deserving groups <\/strong>\u2014 Communities who face structural barriers or discrimination and benefit from targeted approaches to achieve fair outcomes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Systems change<\/strong> \u2014 Shifts in structures, policies, practices, or relationships that sustain long\u2011term improvements in outcomes of interest.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Top-down approach <\/strong>\u2014 Processes led by individuals or organizations in positions of authority, such as government officials, system leaders, or researchers. These approaches often emphasize structure, consistency, and quantitative evidence, which can support rigour and comparability, but may overlook local context, community priorities, or lived experience.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Bottom-up approach <\/strong>\u2014 Processes that emphasize participatory engagement with community members, service providers, and local groups to cocreate inputs that reflect local realities and priorities. These approaches can generate rich, context sensitive insights and stronger community ownership, though findings may be less standardized or less generalizable.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>About these definitions These definitions support shared plain language understanding for key terms across CSWB partners. The definitions are based on CCFSC\u2019s experience with capacity building within the sector, adapted from several reliable Canadian and Indigenous sources, including: Statistics Canada The Canadian Evaluation Society The Tri\u2011Council Policy Statement on Research Ethics (TCPS2) Treasury Board of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":4,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-960","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=960"}],"version-history":[{"count":31,"href":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/960\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1406,"href":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/960\/revisions\/1406"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ccfsc-cccs.ca\/cusm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}