This section is based on an article in the Work Group Evaluation Handbook: Evaluating and Supporting Community Initiatives for Health and Development by Stephen B. Fawcett, Adrienne Paine-Andrews, Vincent T. Francisco, Jerry Schultz, Kimber P. Richter, R.K. Lewis, E.L. Williams, K.J. Harris, Jannette Berkley, Jacqueline L. Fisher, and Christine M. Lopez of the Work Group on Health Promotion and Community Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. What is a constituent survey of outcomes? Why should you conduct this survey? When should you conduct this survey? How do you conduct this survey? What is a constituent survey of outcomes? A constituent survey of outcomes gathers views from people involved in or affected by an initiative about the significance of its accomplishments and observed changes. Respondents may include participants, residents, initiative members, community partners, and people with relevant technical knowledge. The survey helps you understand what they value and how they interpret the initiative's contribution. Their perceptions complement other evidence; ratings alone do not establish the initiative's impact. For example, an initiative focused on cardiovascular health might organize a health fair for local school employees, offering information and opportunities to connect with health services. Holding the fair is an activity. Changes such as improved access to services or participants' reported ability to find needed support are possible outcomes that require separate assessment. The survey could ask respondents how important they consider a documented change, using a clearly labeled rating scale. It could also ask what benefits, limitations, or unintended effects they experienced. Keep questions about importance separate from questions about actual experience: a high importance rating does not show how many people benefited or whether the initiative caused a change. Why should you conduct this survey? Like a constituent survey of process, this survey gives community members and initiative participants an opportunity to share their perspectives. While a process survey focuses on how the group operates, an outcomes survey focuses on perceived results and their significance. Include people with different experiences, especially those whose views may not be heard in routine meetings. For example, feedback about the school employee health fair might indicate that participants valued connections to local services but had difficulty arranging follow-up appointments. The group could explore those barriers before deciding whether to repeat or adapt the event. Less favorable feedback can also identify unmet needs, differences in experience, or questions that require further investigation. A survey can broaden the evidence available for decisions, but it is not automatically objective or unbiased. Findings depend on who is invited, who responds, how questions are worded, and whether people feel able to answer candidly. Interpret responses alongside service records, other outcome measures, and information about the community context. When should you conduct this survey? Choose a schedule that fits the initiative's expected outcomes and decision points. A review every few years may suit long-term community changes, while shorter-term activities may need earlier feedback. The final year of a grant can be one useful point, but some outcomes may require follow-up beyond the funding period. Check funder requirements, allow enough time for respondents to observe relevant changes, and avoid waiting until the end to plan how findings will be used. How do you conduct this survey? If you have conducted surveys of goals or process, build on what you learned about clear questions, accessible participation, and useful reporting. Before starting, agree on the survey's purpose, the period it covers, whose perspectives are needed, and the decisions it will inform. The constituent survey of outcomes involves four main steps. Develop a survey Invite community members and evaluation partners to help design the survey. Review event logs and the goal attainment report to identify documented accomplishments and changes. Describe them neutrally, distinguish completed activities from outcomes, and include opportunities to report limited progress or unintended effects. For importance ratings, use a consistent scale: 1 = Not important, 2 = Slightly important, 3 = Moderately important, 4 = Very important, and 5 = Extremely important. Offer a separate "Not enough information to rate" option and space for comments. Test the draft with intended respondents before distributing it. Conduct a survey of constituents Invite people who can offer relevant perspectives, including those directly affected, people less involved in the initiative, and technical partners where appropriate. Ask respondents to assess only matters they know enough about. Offer suitable participation options, such as online, paper, telephone, or supported completion, with relevant language and accessibility support. Explain that participation is voluntary, how responses will be protected and reported, and when and where to return them. Reach beyond meeting attendees, and provide a private way to respond so people can raise concerns candidly. Use the data to understand perceived importance and experiences Summarize the responses to each question separately. You may calculate an average importance rating, but also show how responses are distributed and review the comments. Exclude skipped items and "Not enough information to rate" responses from numerical averages, and report them separately. Use the number of valid ratings for that question as the denominator, rather than the total number of people who returned a survey. Explain whose views the findings represent and which perspectives may be missing. To calculate the mean, add the numerical ratings and divide by the number of valid ratings. For example, if ten people give ratings of 3, 4, 4, 5, 3, 2, 5, 4, 4, and 3, the total is 37 and the mean is 3.70. The responses extend from 2 to 5; the statistical range, calculated as the highest value minus the lowest, is 3. This summary describes respondents' ratings. It does not measure the size of an outcome or demonstrate that the initiative caused it. Use the survey results to refine the group's choices for action Share an accessible summary with respondents and community partners, then discuss the findings alongside other evidence. Consider what should continue, what needs adjustment, and where more information is required. Explore differing experiences rather than relying only on the highest average ratings. Agree on next steps, responsibilities, and a review date, and explain how the feedback informed decisions. The survey becomes useful when it supports learning and follow-through. Contributor Aimee Whitman Resources Print Resources Fawcett, S., in collaboration with Paine, A., Francisco, V., Schultz, J., Richter, K., Lewis, R., Williams, E., Harris, K., Berkley, J., Fisher, J., & Lopez, C. (1994). Work group evaluation handbook: Evaluating and supporting community initiatives for health and development. Lawrence, KS: Work Group on Health Promotion and Community Development, University of Kansas.
