EvaluationEvaluatorTimingAuthority to change rulesWhat it measures
Pilot-year evaluation (Grillos, 2014)Fully external academic bodyOne-timeAdvisoryReach and participation, Process quality, Money and distribution, Downstream and institutional effects
Year-three evaluation (Boston University Initiative on Cities, 2016)Fully external academic bodyOne-timeAdvisoryReach and participation, Process quality
City-designed participant surveys (Change Agent pre and post surveys, idea collection survey, voter survey)Internal teamEvery cycle—Reach and participation, Downstream and institutional effects
Post-vote participant debrief written into the rulebookParticipants themselvesEvery cycleAdvisoryProcess quality
Annual results sheet (ballots cast, neighbourhood and age breakdown, votes per project)Internal teamEvery cycleInformational onlyReach and participation
Maker’s note · curator

Two academic evaluations exist, by different teams, in year one and year three; nothing in the sources says an evaluation was run in year two or after 2016, so the academic loop is ad hoc rather than built in. The loop did close at least once: the 2016 report lists the pilot recommendations (longer timeline, better communication, youth in outreach, stronger web presence, more youth leadership) and by 2015-16 the cycle had lengthened to November to June, trained youth facilitators led committees, Mayor's Youth Council members did outreach, and ideas came in by text and social media. Whether findings had to be responded to is not documented, so Advisory is a reading. The City's own surveys had weak response rates in 2016 (18 post-surveys, a 3 percent voter survey), which limited what they could measure. The rulebook's participant debrief is documented as an intention and as a June step in the 2016 cycle table, not as an observed event. The recent results sheets report turnout and votes only.

Guest book

Notes left on Feedback Loops.

No notes yet. Be the first to leave one on this node.