Understanding the scope and scale of the activity we intend to measure is an important consideration when designing an evaluation. This page outlines different frameworks that provide a starting point for considering how deeply we want to assess outcomes and results.
The Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) framework helps evaluate activities involving people, such as workshops and training, by assessing their effectiveness and impact. The three rings approach reminds us that projects rarely achieve societal change in isolation but instead contribute within a wider network of initiatives and influences. Systems-based evaluation provides a framework for arranging information and developing understanding, focusing on relationships and context rather than discrete elements. This is particularly useful in multi-stakeholder situations where participants need to see how different activities fit within a broader social programme. Lastly, the order of outcomes framework acknowledges that sustainable development projects often take time to mature and provides a pathway to monitor and evaluate progress toward long-term sustainability.
Targeting Outcomes of Programs (Bennett’s hierarchy)
Targeting Outcomes of Programs (TOP) focuses on outcomes in planning, implementing, and evaluating programs. It is based on Bennett’s hierarchy, a structured framework tested, revised, and widely used over the past two decades. TOP integrates program evaluation with program development, shifting the focus from activities to their broader impact. This approach is summative, action-oriented, and utilisation-focused.
Level | Description | Summary |
7 | End results | Achieving and end result of economic, social, environmental/health value |
6 | Practice change | Behavioural changes in target group (direct/proxy evidence) |
5 | KASA | KASA changes: Knowledge – Attitudes – Skills – Aspirations (proxy indicators for behaviour change) |
4 | Reactions | Reaction to involvement (e.g. one-page survey) |
3 | Involvement | Involvement of different stakeholders (participation, monitoring, etc.) |
2 | Activities | Implementation of activities (activities monitoring) |
1 | Inputs | Programming resources to support program activities (inputs monitoring) |
For more information: Targeting Outcomes of Programs
Three rings of extension evaluation

The three rings approach ( is a framework presented in a paper by Jeff Coutts at the 2nd Australasian Pacific Extension Conference in November 1997: i) the inner ring is the project process, activities and outputs; ii) the middle ring comprises of the communities being directly affected by the extension intervention – with the recognition that other agencies and programs are also having an impact in this ring; iii) the outer ring represents the broader community/society where the impact can be measured at a macro level.
The three rings of extension evaluation [Source: Coutts, J. (1997) Exposing the tiger – a fresh look at the evaluation of extension. Paper read at 2nd Australasian Pacific Extension Conference, at Albury, New South Wales in Dart and Petheram, (1998). Review of evaluation in Agricultural Extension, RIRDC Publication No. 98/136]
The inner ring – internal project level: According to this framework, the internal project level looks at the internal process and activities of the project over which the project team has some control. This level is similar to Bennett’s levels 1-3 and includes activities, participation, inputs and outputs.
The middle ring – the direct project impact level: Coutts (1997) explains that as the second ring is entered the level of complexity and potential for confusion rises significantly. It becomes difficult to attribute the effects of the project intervention directly to the changes occurring, as the changes could be influenced by other programs of events. He suggests that a ‘synergy matrix’ be developed to highlight the relationship between the program being evaluated and other projects, agencies or groups impacting on the outcomes of the program.
The outer ring – overall industry, community or societal level: Coutts explains that most projects cannot lay full claim to observable outcomes at this level. The emphasis here is on measurable changes in tangible benchmarks, for example levels of adoption, levels of sustainable indicators, net farm incomes, and indicators of product quality. He states that due recognition should be given to the role played by other complementary and competing interventions, encouraging and inhibiting government policies, climatic, market and economic conditions. Describing these provides an overall context for the evaluation of a specific program or project. The role that the program is playing in contributing towards change is clarified, and the levels of changes in benchmarks are put into a realistic timeframe.
Coutts (1997) encourages the evaluator to assess the extent to which the project activities are complementary to, or adding value to, the knowledge processes provided by other parties, and how well these specific knowledge processes are being undertaken. This process can help to identify gaps in the provision of information or other support, and to reduce duplication of effort by different agencies.
Snyder systems evaluation model

The Snyder Evaluation Model provides a systems-based approach to evaluation, illustrating how different elements of a project function within a broader system.
As Allen (1997) notes, many participatory processes in development are inherently evaluative, particularly those grounded in action research and learning. These approaches follow an iterative cycle of planning, reflection, and action. However, to effectively guide diverse stakeholders towards shared environmental goals, evaluation processes must be explicitly systems-based. Systems thinking offers a framework for organising information and developing understanding, focusing on relationships and context rather than isolated elements such as roles and values. This approach is especially suited to multi-stakeholder settings, where the goal is to help participants see how different activities and cooperative relationships fit within a larger social programme (Allen 1997).
The Snyder Evaluation Model is a systems-based and participatory evaluation process. It involves participants as co-evaluators through a three-stage evaluation process: process, outcome, and short-cycle evaluation. Each stage draws on a systems perspective of project operations. Resources are used in activities that generate both intended and unintended immediate effects, contributing towards broader objectives and long-term impact.
As Dick (2006) points out, each process provides a different form of evaluation, and each builds on the understanding and insights gained during earlier stages.
The key activities of each stage are summarised below:
- Process evaluation: Helps evaluators and stakeholders develop a deeper understanding of the programme’s functioning. It maps links between resource use, activities, immediate effects (both intended and unintended), objectives, and the programme’s contribution to broader long-term goals.
- Outcome evaluation: Uses insights from process evaluation to assess goal achievement and overall effectiveness. It also supports the development of performance indicators for continuous monitoring and feedback.
The short cycle evaluation, in turn, uses the understanding and the performance indicators gained in the two earlier phases to set up the feedback loops which can be used to enable a programme to become self-improving.
Orders of outcomes
Sustainable development is the stated goal of many integrated management initiatives, particularly in natural resource sectors. While it is widely recognised that such projects require long-term commitment, there is often little clarity on how progress towards these objectives should be tracked and assessed. The “order of outcomes” framework provides a structured approach to monitoring and evaluating progress, offering a sequence of tangible outcomes that, if pursued effectively over extended periods, can lead to increasingly sustainable outcomes. More detailed information on these frameworks can be obtained from Olsen (2003) Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress in integrated coastal management initiatives and Olsen et al. (2006)Ecosystem-based management: Markers for assessing progress. UNEP/GPA, The Hague.

The term “orders” is used to denote a hierarchy of indicators that reflect different levels of aggregation in evaluating progress.
First-order outcomes establish the enabling conditions necessary for effective intervention. These include stakeholder engagement, institutional capacity-building, securing authority and resources, and setting clear goals. These foundational elements ensure that policies, plans, and actions can be successfully implemented at ecosystem scales.
Second-order outcomes indicate the successful implementation of management initiatives. They manifest as changes in organisational practices, collaborative efforts, infrastructure investments, and behavioural shifts among resource users, whether through regulatory compliance or voluntary actions.
Third-order outcomes capture the socio-economic and environmental impacts that determine the overall success or failure of the initiative. To ensure efficiency and effectiveness, these outcomes should be clearly defined early in the process, as achieving measurable change often requires timeframes of 5–10 years or more.
Fourth-order outcomes represent the long-term vision of sustainable coastal development. This remains an evolving ideal, embodying the balance between competing needs and the ethical responsibility to ensure that present actions do not compromise future generations’ ability to meet their needs.