Tier 6 addresses a major challenge facing peer programs: demonstrating impact in ways that reflect the realities of peer specialist work. Inconsistent measures and overly clinical evaluation approaches often make it difficult for peer programs to communicate their value to partners, funders, and policymakers. This tier focuses on measuring outcomes such as recovery capital, connection, engagement, hope, and quality of life while protecting the relational nature of peer support.
Tier 6 helps organizations build
• Clear outcome frameworks that reflect peer specialist practice
• Simple evaluation approaches for programs with limited capacity
• Reporting methods that communicate impact without over-surveilling participants or staff
• Shared language for outcomes so partners and funders understand peer specialist work
• Evidence-building practices that protect peer support fidelity
This tier moves from anecdote to credible evidence without compromising peer specialist values.
What Outcomes Matter in Peer Work
What Outcomes Matter
Understanding the outcomes peer work most often influences.
Recovery capital, connection, engagement, hope, and quality of life are central indicators of progress in peer support. This section explains why these outcomes matter and how they reflect meaningful change in people’s lives.
Simple Evaluation Frameworks
Practical evaluation approaches for organizations with limited capacity.
This section introduces a minimum viable measurement set and simple strategies for collecting and reporting outcome data without creating unnecessary administrative burden.
Building the Evidence Base
Strengthening the research and evidence supporting peer specialist services.
This section focuses on data collection approaches that protect peer support fidelity while helping organizations communicate outcomes clearly to partners and funders.
Summary
Tier 6 focuses on measuring and communicating the impact of peer specialist services in ways that reflect peer specialistpractice while still producing credible evidence for partners, policymakers, and funders.
Most Common Mistake
Programs struggle to demonstrate impact when evaluation relies only on clinical metrics or inconsistent outcome measures that do not reflect the realities of peer specialist work.