3.5 Measurement & Evaluation

Fictional extract. Project figures, quotations and grant details are illustrative.

Evaluation approach and philosophy

We use a proportionate, youth-friendly mixed-methods monitoring and evaluation framework developed for our youth work. Our approach combines quantitative tracking (session registers, mentoring goal progression and school-held attendance and exclusion records) with qualitative evidence (post-session youth worker debrief logs, young people’s voice and partner teacher feedback).

Everything we measure is governed by three principles:

• Proportionate and non-intrusive: Surveys and mentoring reviews are kept short, conversational and strengths-based so young people can take part comfortably.
• Cross-checked against external data: With parent and pupil consent, we cross-check mentoring progress every six months against partner schools’ own attendance and fixed-term suspension data.
• Used actively to improve delivery: Data is reviewed termly by the staff team, Youth Steering Group and Board of Directors to adapt session timings, activities and referral criteria.

Who delivers measurement and evaluation

• Frontline youth workers and mentors record attendance registers at every session, log brief post-session observational notes (capturing group dynamics, individual breakthroughs and any safeguarding or wellbeing concerns), and facilitate six-weekly mentoring goal reviews with each mentored young person.
• The Project Director oversees our case management database, compiles termly outcomes summaries for partner schools and funders, and leads six-monthly data review meetings with school pastoral leads.
• Partner secondary school pastoral leads and Early Help link workers contribute baseline and follow-up school attendance and behaviour data for referred pupils, and complete our annual partner feedback survey. (Note: as a £95,000-income grassroots CIC, we have not commissioned an external independent academic evaluation to date, choosing instead to validate our internal tracking through a youth work quality review and direct school-data cross-checks.)