 Intermediate Outcomes: Change that is logically expected to occur once one or more immediate outcomes have been achieved. These outcomes will take more time to achieve and usually reflect changes in behaviour or practice of the target group (e.g., increased capacity of service providers, improved service delivery, reduction of priority risks, etc.).

 Long-term Outcome: The highest-level change that can reasonably be attributed to the initiative/program as a consequence of achievement of one or more intermediate outcomes. Usually represents the primary reason the intiative/program was created, and reflects a positive, sustainable change in the state for the target group (e.g., improved community safety and well- being among individuals, families and communities, reduced costs associated with and reliance on incident responses, etc.).

When choosing which outcomes to measure, it is important for planning partners to be realistic about what measurable impact their activities can be expected to have in the given timeframe. For example, their project goal might be to reduce the number of domestic violence incidents in the community. This would require sustainable changes in behaviour and it may take years before long-term trends show a measurable reduction. It may be easier to measure immediate to intermediate level outcomes such as increased speed of intervention in situations of high-risk for domestic violence, or increased use of support networks by victims or vulnerable groups.

A logic model should be completed during the planning phase of the plan in order to map out the above components for each identified risk or problem that will be addressed. Please see below for a logic model sample.

Following the identification of outcomes, corresponding indicators should be developed. An indicator is an observable, measurable piece of information about a particular outcome, which shows to what extent the outcome has been achieved. The following criteria should be considered when selecting indicators:

• relevance to the outcome that the indicator is intended to measure;
• understandability of what is being measured and reported within an organization and for partners;
• span of influence or control of activities on the indicator;
• feasibility of collecting reasonably valid data on the indicator;
• cost of collecting the indicator data;
• uniqueness of the indicator in relation to other indicators;
• objectivity of the data that will be collected on the indicator; and
• comprehensiveness of the set of indicators (per outcome) in the identification of all possible effects.

Outcomes, indicators and other information about the collection of indicator data should be mapped out early on in order to ensure that performance measurement is done consistently throughout the implementation of activities, and beyond, if necessary. This information forms the performance measurement framework (PMF) of the plan (or for each risk-based component of the plan). Please see below for a sample PMF template where this information may be captured.