Endnotes

1. The terminology of evaluation varies across disciplines and authors. This guide uses the term ‘outcome’ to refer to both the short-term and the medium to longer-term observable and/or measurable changes in the condition of an object under study (for example a community) that an activity is thought to have contributed to. These ‘outcomes’ can be intended or unintended, temporary or permanent. The word ‘impact’ is used in some places in the guide to refer to a change in the condition of an object that is known to be caused by the activity.
2. Douglah (1998) Developing a concept of extension program evaluation see University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension in References section
3. Section 6.2 in the resource Engaging Queenslanders: community engagement in the business of government discusses key questions that need to be considering in planning a community engagement activity.
4. For further information see: or www.gu.edu.au/school/evp/CameronJohnsonpaper.pdf
5. This has alternatively been called developing a ‘theory of change’ (see www.aspeninstitute.org).
6. Many frameworks for developing program logic models separate ‘activities’ from ‘outputs’. In this guide we refer to ‘activities’ as encompassing both the process used for engaging with the community and any measurable outputs of that engagement in recognition of the fact that, in terms of the performance of community engagement, the two are intertwined.
7. This is one of the indicators of social capital provided in: Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) Measuring Social Capital: An Australian Framework and Indicators.
8. www.unesco.org/ios/eng/evaluation/tools/outil_02e.htm#ACTIV
9. Chaskin et al. 2001. Building Community Capacity. New York: Aldine DeGruyter, p.7
10. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension (1998) – see References
11. University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension (1998), p.35 – see References
12. Institute for Social Research (2000) Social Benchmarks and Indicators for Vicotria, p.7 www.sisr.net/programcsp/published/MS1CHAPTERS.PDF
13. Stone, W. and Hughes, J. Measuring social capital towards a standardised approach. Paper presenting at the 2002 Australasian Evaluation Society International Conference, Wollongong, Australia, p.3
14. Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary (3rd Edition). Oxford University Press: Oxford.
15. Voluntary Activity Unit (1996) cited in InterAct, 2001 – see References
16. McMillan, D.W. and Chavis, D.M. (1986) Sense of community: a defi nition and theory, American Journal of Community Psychology. 14, p.9
17. Cote, S. and Healey, T. (2001) The well-being of nations. The role of human and social capital. OECD, Paris, p.41
18. Association for the study and development of community (2001) Principles for Evaluating Comprehensive Community Initiatives, p.18