plotlineEvaluation
Request Proposal

Where your data becomes your story.

Sample deliverables

What you receive from us, shown on one fictional program and one fictional company. Every name, number and quote on this page is invented.

A deliverable is where the data becomes the story. Each one below is built to be read by the people who have to act on it: the board, the funder, the program director, the shift lead.

What does a Plotline Evaluation deliverable look like?

This page shows a sample dashboard, logic model, evaluation plan with a data-collection timeline, an annotated report finding, a one-page brief, a board slide and a business evaluation finding, all built on a fictional program and a fictional company with invented data. Each finding puts the numbers and the voices side by side and ends with what to do.

Dashboard

The measures your funder and your board ask about, kept current and filterable by site and group.

Harbor Peer Support · Year 1 dashboard
Sample · fictional program, invented data
Participants enrolled312+4% · target 300Cumulative enrollment, Oct to Sep, reaching 312
Still engaged at 6 months78%+8 pts · target 70%Engaged at 6 months by month, ending at 78%
Referrals completed within 30 days64%Below 75% targetReferrals completed within 30 days by month, ending at 64%
Mentor contacts per participant9.4+1.4 · target 8Mentor contacts per participant by month, ending at 9.4

New enrollments by month

October to September · 312 participants

010203040Oct: 14 new participantsOct14Nov: 18 new participantsNovDec: 21 new participantsDecJan: 19 new participantsJanFeb: 24 new participantsFebMar: 27 new participantsMarApr: 26 new participantsAprMay: 31 new participantsMayJun: 29 new participantsJunJul: 33 new participantsJulAug: 35 new participantsAug35Sep: 35 new participantsSep35Target 25 a monthDispatcher referrals begin010203040Oct: 14 new participantsO14Nov: 18 new participantsNDec: 21 new participantsDJan: 19 new participantsJFeb: 24 new participantsFMar: 27 new participantsMApr: 26 new participantsAMay: 31 new participantsMJun: 29 new participantsJJul: 33 new participantsJAug: 35 new participantsA35Sep: 35 new participantsS35Target 25Dispatcher referrals begin

Referral funnel

Share of referrals made to counseling and benefits

Referrals made: 100% of referrals100%Referrals madeScheduled: 81% of referrals81%ScheduledCompleted within 30 days: 64% of referrals64%Completed within 30 days17 points lost at the handoffscheduled, not completed in 30 days

Who enrolled

By service background · 312 participants

58%
34%
Veterans 58%First responders 34%Family members 8%

First responders are 34% of year 1 enrollment and 40% of enrollments since February, when dispatcher referrals began.

Engagement at 6 months, by site

Target 75%
North
84%
Central
79%
South
71%
Mobile
76%

On a live dashboard every figure updates as data comes in and filters by site and group.

Logic model

How the program is meant to work, on one page, agreed with your team before any data is collected.

Sample · fictional program

Harbor Peer Support Program · Logic model

Agreed with the program team before data collection. Peer mentoring for veterans and first responders in a mid-sized county.

Inputs

  • Trained peer mentors, veterans and first responders
  • Program coordinator
  • County grant
  • Referral agreements with counseling partners

Activities

  • One-to-one peer mentoring
  • Monthly group sessions
  • Warm referrals to counseling and benefits

Outputs

  • Participants enrolled
  • Mentor contacts
  • Referrals made and completed

Short-term outcomes

  • Stronger social connection
  • Knows where to get help
  • Lower reported stress

Long-term outcomes

  • Sustained help-seeking
  • Improved wellbeing
  • Fewer crises

Assumptions

  • Peers who share the background build trust faster.
  • Counseling partners can absorb the referrals.
  • Mentors stay for the year.

External factors

  • Shift schedules
  • Stigma about asking for help
  • Partner staffing
  • The county budget cycle

Read left to right: what we put in, what we do, what comes out, what changes.

Evaluation plan

The questions the evaluation will answer, how each one is measured, and when.

Sample · fictional program

Evaluation plan: questions, measures and timing

Evaluation questionMeasureData sourceWhen
Is the program reaching the people it was designed for?Enrollment by service background and referral sourceIntake formsMonthly
Do participants feel more connected, and do they know where to get help?Share agreeing with each statementParticipant survey, paper and onlineIntake and 6 months
What makes peer mentoring work, and what gets in the way?Themes from participants and mentorsFocus groups and interviewsMonths 5 and 6
Are referrals completed?Referrals completed within 30 daysReferral logQuarterly

Data-collection timeline, year 1

Data collectionReportingDeliverable due
OctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepIntake formsIntake forms: Oct to SepContinuousParticipant surveyParticipant survey: Oct to DecWave 1Participant survey: Apr to JunWave 2Focus groups and interviewsFocus groups and interviews: Feb to MarFeb to MarReferral log pull, quarterlyReferral log pull, end of DecReferral log pull, end of MarReferral log pull, end of JunReferral log pull, end of SepDashboard liveDashboard live: Dec to SepFrom Dec, updated nightlyInterim briefInterim brief, MarInterim brief, MarFinal reportFinal report, SepFinal report, SepONDJFMAMJJASIntake formsIntake forms: Oct to SepContinuousParticipant surveyParticipant survey: Oct to DecWave 1Participant survey: Apr to JunWave 2Focus groups and interviewsFocus groups and interviews: Feb to MarFeb-MarReferral log pull, quarterlyReferral log pull, end of DecReferral log pull, end of MarReferral log pull, end of JunReferral log pull, end of SepDashboard liveDashboard live: Dec to SepFrom Dec, updated nightlyInterim briefInterim brief, MarInterim brief, MarFinal reportFinal report, SepFinal report, Sep

Dates are agreed with the program team and the funder’s reporting calendar before the first survey goes out.

Final report

Written to be used, not filed. The finding below is marked up to show how every finding in our reports is built.

Sample · fictional program
plotlineEvaluation

Harbor Peer Support Program: what changed in year 1, and why

Year 1 evaluation report · Prepared for the Harbor County Behavioral Health Board · Fictional

Mixed methods: participant survey, focus groups, interviews and program records, read together.

Contents

  1. Executive summary
  2. The program and how it is meant to work (logic model)
  3. Evaluation questions and methods
  4. Findings: reach, connection, help-seeking, referrals
  5. Recommendations, in priority order
  6. Appendices: survey, focus group guide, data tables

Methods at a glance

  • Participant survey at intake and 6 months, 118 matched responses
  • Six focus groups and twelve one-on-one interviews
  • Program records: enrollment, mentor contacts, referral log
  • Qualitative and quantitative results read together, finding by finding

Every report also comes as an executive summary, a slide deck and a one-page brief.

A page from the report

Sample · fictional program, invented data
Harbor Peer Support Program · Year 1 evaluation reportFinding 2
1

Participants feel more connected, and shared experience is why.

2

What changed

Participant survey, 118 people who answered at intake and at 6 months. Share agreeing with each statement.

At intakeAt 6 monthsI have someone I can talk to: 41% at intake, 72% at 6 months41%72%Someone to talk toI know where to get help: 55% at intake, 83% at 6 months55%83%Know where to get helpMy stress is high most days: 64% at intake, 46% at 6 months (lower is better)64%46%Stress high most days(lower is better)
3

Why it changed

Six focus groups and twelve interviews. Quotes are written for this sample.

They have been there.

My mentor didn’t need me to explain the job. That’s why I kept showing up.Participant, focus group

Help on their schedule.

Texts at 2 a.m. after a bad shift. That’s when it mattered.Participant, interview

What gets in the way: referrals stall at the handoff.

I got the counselor’s number, and nobody called me back for three weeks.Participant, interview
4

What it means. The survey shows the change. The focus groups show how it happens: shared experience builds the trust that makes a referral possible, and a slow handoff puts that trust at risk.

5

What to do. Agree a 72-hour callback standard with counseling partners.

14

One-page brief

For the board meeting, the funder and anyone who will not read the full report.

Sample · fictional program, invented data

Harbor Peer Support Program · Year 1 at a glance · One-page brief

41% → 72%have someone they can talk to, intake to six months

What we found

  • Connection rose from 41% to 72% of participants in six months.
  • Participants credit mentors who share their background.
  • Only 64% of referrals are completed within 30 days.

What it means

The mentoring model works. The weak point is the handoff to counseling, where slow callbacks undo trust the mentors have built.

What to do next

  1. Agree a 72-hour callback standard with counseling partners.Counseling partners · 30 days
  2. Recruit more first-responder mentors; demand from dispatchers exceeds supply.Program director · next quarter
  3. Keep after-hours text contact, and fund it in the renewal.Coordinator · renewal budget

Progress against targets

MeasureTargetYear 1Status
Enrollment300312On track
Engaged at 6 months70%78%On track
Referrals completed in 30 days75%64%Watch
Mentor contacts per participant89.4On track

One slide

Every report comes with a deck. One finding per slide, the headline is the finding.

Sample · fictional program, invented data

Connection rose from 41% to 72%. Shared experience is why.

At intakeAt 6 monthsI have someone I can talk to: 41% at intake, 72% at 6 months41%72%Someone to talk toI know where to get help: 55% at intake, 83% at 6 months55%83%Know where to get helpMy stress is high most days: 64% at intake, 46% at 6 months (lower is better)64%46%Stress high most days(lower is better)

My mentor didn’t need me to explain the job. That’s why I kept showing up.Participant, focus group · quote written for this sample

Plotline Evaluation · Harbor Peer Support Program · Board deck, slide 6 of 12 · Fictional

A business evaluation finding

The same methods, applied to how a company gets its work done.

Sample · fictional company, invented data

Order to delivery: where the days go

A regional distributor, fictional. Average days per step, 400 orders from the order system, 12 observed shifts, 9 staff interviews.

Order entry0.4 days
Credit approval
the bottleneck2.3 days
Picking0.9 days
Packing0.3 days
Dispatch1.1 days
5.0 daysorder to delivery

The numbers: credit approval takes 2.3 of the 5 days from order to delivery.

What we saw: approvals are done in one batch after lunch, so morning orders wait a day. Most orders held were from repeat customers with no payment problems.

We’re not checking anything on those accounts. We’re just waiting for the batch.Staff member, interview. Written for this sample.

Recommendation: approve repeat customers automatically up to a set credit limit, and review the rest twice a day.

Modelled change

Approve repeat customers automatically. Modelled on the 400 orders, not yet measured.

Today5.0 days
Modelled2.9 days

Order to delivery, average days. Credit approval falls from 2.3 days to 0.2.

Want to see what this would look like for you?

Tell us about the program or the business. You will hear back within one business day.

Sites, people involved and length of the project. Those drive the quote.

Every inquiry is confidential. We never sell or share your information. Privacy policy.

Powered by CookieAdmin