Evaluation Indicators

• Output — Participants and stakeholders are given access to the results of an assessment against the original objectives of the initiative.
• Outcome — Participants of evaluation discussions are able to clearly define the impact your Video for Change initiative has had on their lives.
• Outcome — Initiative participants are able to identify a ‘most significant change’.

Power Analysis:

• Output — Power imbalances are openly discussed during focus group discussions or in surveys.
• Output — An assessment detailing changes (if any) in power relationships is created.
• Outcome — Community members are able to link impacts of your initiative to injustices occurring in their community, and decide which to act upon.

Participation and Inclusion:

• Output — Voices of marginalised groups in the community are included at every step of the initiative.
• Output — Voices of marginalised groups in the community are included in the evaluation.
• Output — Training, planning and monitoring and evaluation efforts are all held in the local language at public and easily accessible locations.
• Output — Participants are allowed to contribute fully throughout the process. This includes contributing to the topic and approach to the video, the agenda of any focus group discussions and the evaluation design itself.
• Outcome — Participants express a sense of self-empowerment and agency through inclusion and contribution of voice, ideas and story.

Accountability and Transparency:

• Output — Results of the final evaluation, including all sources, are created and shared with partners and stakeholders.
• Output — Communities are informed about evaluation efforts taking place in their community, and results are shared in the local language of the community as appropriate.
• Outcome — Communities have established a sense of trust with the filmmaking team and with partner organisations, potentially leading to longer-term collaborative relationships.

Risk Management:

• Output — Selection of participants and locations for focus group discussion are chosen following risk assessment.
• Output — Information in final evaluation is made anonymous as needed and securely stored.
• Output — Risks of partaking in final evaluation are explained to participants.

• Output — Participants agree that something needs to be done regarding the issue you are tackling.
• Output — Community members are able to share stories that relate to and build on your initiative, and have the opportunity to review and advise at the research and planning stages.
• Output — A representative group from the impacted community, and/or communities of interest is included in the process.
• Output — Team members have input into resource allocations if appropriate.
• Output — Community members are able to explain the goals of the Video for Change initiative and what effect it might have on their lives.
• Output — There is a system to maintain engagement with key stakeholders regarding the progress of your initiative even after the project is technically complete.

Before setting out indicators, we highlight Small World News and its description of the ‘challenges’ of measuring impact of capacity-building efforts.

Small World News is a Video for Change and journalism training organisation. When thinking about measuring capacity building, its founders note that the requirements of funders often don’t match their interests in measuring skill development and demonstration.

Funders metrics or requirements can focus on the number of people trained, which sometimes overshadows the question of how well trainees actually learned skills.

Suggested capacity-building indicators:

• Output — Both the team and participants understand the goals of the workshop or event.
• Output — Participants actively contribute to the design and agenda for the workshop or the event.
• Output — There is strong diversity and representation, which includes:
  • participants who represent different roles within the community or organisations
  • strong participation of members of minority, vulnerable or marginalised and under-represented populations and sectors
  • participants from a wide variety of geographic locations, i.e rich versus poorer locations.
• Output — Participants are given enough time to provide feedback on the event or workshops, and trainers incorporate this feedback.
• Output — Both the team and participants are aware of and understand risk in participants’ different contexts.
• Output — The team understands the value and application of informed consent.
• Output — There has been a discussion of secure film-making strategies, and participants understand these.
• Outcome — Participants have acquired applicable professional and life skills through the workshop or training.

• Output — The filmmaking team, community members and other stakeholders have space and time to reflect on, learn from and discuss their experiences —what went well, what was challenging and what they are taking away for the future.
• Output — The team has reviewed the initiative’s original impact statement and a reflection on the hopes and expectations has been recorded at the beginning.
• Output — An overview of possible hazards and risks to the project has been addressed.
• Output — Discussions on how to minimise the risk of hazards have been held with the team.
• Output — Sensitive data has been stored safely. In high-risk areas, data that could put people into extreme harm is not collected.
• Output — Facilities have been created for people to participate anonymously.
• Outcome — Participants, especially members of the affected community, have acquired filmmaking and production skills.

• Output — Promotion efforts to inform the relevant parts of the community about your initiative have been carried out
• Output — Opportunities for full participation were given by hosting events at suitable times and locations that allow people to be present.
• Output — Quantitative and demographic information about audience members watching the content has been collected.
• Output — Reactions from audience members about the content have been recorded through surveys or focus groups, for example.
• Outcome — The filmmaking team, affected community members and stakeholders have been given space to talk about their experiences with outreach, distribution and engagement, and to reflect and learn from what went well, what was challenging and what they are taking away for the future.
• Outcome — Affected community members and audience members have taken relevant and appropriate action to change an aspect of the situation or context.