Opening your page…
You can still use the navigation while it loads.
Opening your page…
You can still use the navigation while it loads.
Develop an evaluation plan that connects an equity question with meaningful evidence and a practical next decision.
Read the measurement practice note: Measuring whether equity work is working, without scoring people
Fictional example · not DHS data
A team revises a reminder letter and asks a separate group to find its next action. Each version is read by 100 people in this made-up example. What would help the team decide what to keep or change?
This is an outcome for one task. It does not establish what caused the difference or how well the notice works for everyone.
The team held four review sessions, compared with two in the earlier period. That shows more activity, not its effect.
More readers identified the next action. The groups were different, so the result invites further questions about the comparison.
The team documented two wording changes prompted by participants and explained its response to two other suggestions. The earlier period has no comparable record.
| Evidence | Earlier period | Later period | What to ask next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Activity: review sessions | 2 sessions | 4 sessions | Who could take part, and what did the sessions help the team understand? |
| Outcome: readers finding the action | 60 of 100 readers (60%) | 78 of 100 readers (78%) | Were the groups and reading conditions comparable? Whose access needs remain unexamined? |
| Influence: input shaping the draft | Not documented | 2 wording changes; reasons recorded for 2 other suggestions | Did participants recognize their input in the response? What could they still influence? |
For your evaluation plan, choose an outcome that matters to the people affected. Describe how their experience can shape the next decision, and record what the evidence cannot show.
These notes are not saved automatically. Copy or download what you want to keep before leaving. Use program-level examples and responsible roles; leave out names, private learning records, and confidential case details.
What pattern, barrier, or decision do you want to understand? Whose experience will help define what matters?
What capacity, support, or changes could address the need? Describe what will actually happen.
Name the immediate products or completed activities. Keep these separate from evidence that circumstances improved.
Describe the change in a decision, process, service, or workplace pattern. Agree any targets and review timing with the people involved; do not invent them.
What is known before the change? Identify the source and period, or record that a baseline still needs to be established.
How will quantitative patterns and people’s accounts inform each other? Identify measures, questions, sources, and ways people can contribute.
Which differences could be important to examine? Agree denominators, minimum reporting groups, and suppression with the data owner. Avoid identifiable small groups and individual learning or assessment records.
Consider missing perspectives, incomplete data, other explanations, and whether a comparison supports a causal claim. Keep platform use separate from equity outcomes.
Which roles will gather evidence, interpret it with people affected, decide what to change, and share what was learned? Record open decisions rather than assumed commitments.
After reviewing evidence, what changed in your understanding? What would you keep, adjust, or investigate next?
Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.