Volunteering: why is measuring impact important now?
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•720 views
Volunteering: why is measuring impact important now? Argues that our sector can improve, that the drivers of change for impact measurement include the new world of doing good, austerity economics; and finally some challenges and where next.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (15)
More from Karl Wilding
More from Karl Wilding (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Volunteering: why is measuring impact important now?
- 1. VOLUNTEERING: WHY IS MEASURING IMPACT IMPORTANT NOW? @KARLWILDING NCVO PUBLIC POLICY & VOLUNTEERING MAY 2016 SPEAKING NOTES EMBEDDED IN PPT SLIDES SO PLEASE DOWNLOAD!
- 2. 1. WHERE ARE WE NOW? 2. TERMS OF TRADE 3. DRIVERS FOR CHANGE 4. CHALLENGES 5. WHERE NEXT? 2
- 3. 1. WHERE ARE WE NOW? 3
- 4. VOLUNTEERING
- 6. 2. TERMS OF TRADE 6
- 7. WHAT IS IMPACT? • Impact is overall change we seek to achieve. • What we do – our outputs – designed to deliver impact. • Impact significantly bigger and more important than evaluating, or monitoring, or measuring.
- 8. 3. DRIVERS FOR CHANGE 8
- 9. THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF DOING GOOD
- 11. 11
- 13. 13
- 14. 4. CHALLENGES 14
- 17. 17
- 19. WHAT WORKS, EVIDENCE OF HOW CHANGE HAPPENS
- 20. 20
- 21. 21
Editor's Notes
- So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
- So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
- Love this slide, but is it indicative of how we use words like passionate and priceless, rather than harder edged words like intervention and value?
- As a sector, our just do it approach can lead to too much emphasis on gut instinct rather than rational assessment (we need both)
- So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
- Impact is the difference you make. A way of thinking. Embodied in strategy, embraced by leadership. Achieving impact: why a voluntary organisation exists! At a time of scrutiny its important more than ever that we understand negative externalities, or be able to rebut accusations that doing good has negative externalities – eg job substitution in public services
- So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
- People want to do good. They don’t care in which sector they do it. So for the time precious, the cash poor, the outcome is the same: if they don’t think that we are using their resource to make the biggest impact, we wont be in the business of doing good. Note this is a relative proposition, not an absolute. It’s no longer good enough to say we do good in the voluntary sector.
- We’re all investors now: shift from altruism to reciprocity and return New breed of social investors: earned not inherited wealth; demand metrics; comfortable with technology and (big) data; want scale and replication These all point to a new wave of doing good based on making a difference
- This, in a nutshell, is where people are: no one wants to give up their time for nothing
- If new social change is the first driver, tight public finances are the second Foundations also under pressure – not just govt Need to think about cashable savings that result from spending money on, for example, volunteer management
- Finally, we need to be transparent and accountable, esp in a climate where people are looking for things to go wrong Money: Where does it come from and what do you spend it on? Sorry, I know this is dull, but people want to know. We’re behind government on this. And the likes of the NAO want to be able to ‘follow the money’. They’re firmly of the view that transparency reduces graft: sunlight is the best disinfectant Wake up call: xBRL is coming. Then our financial data will be machine readable. So if we don’t sort the narrative out, someone else will do it for us. I think that this is incredibly important.
- So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
- First challenge is how do we shift the debate from measuring to instead planning and assessing
- And how do we not get too obsessed with the McKinsey thesis – what gets measured matters and what matters gets managed (new version is what gets measured gets treasured) Danger of measurement is that we become target obsessed and lose what is integral to volunteering – human relationships. In doing so we meet the target but miss the point
- John Snow – work like a bookkeeper, think like a poet The point is that how we communicate impact is a big challenge. We need stories and campaigns to go along with better evidence and data
- We also need to think about what scale we are thinking about impact – individual, organisational, societal
- We need to start thinking about theories of change, and log frames: in other words, what’s the relationship between the changes we see in the world and the inputs that we are using…or asking for. Input: Pie mix Output: Pies made (100 pies made etc), pies sold (Number pies sold, year on year) Outcome: More pies consumed (Customer surveys etc.), customer satisfied (repeat business, surveys, interviews etc.). Impact: Obesity etc. (NHS Statistics – analysed pie eating Vs. non-pie eating, randomised testing, control groups etc.).
- Impact Hopefully we can get to a place where we arent afraid to fail Intended outcome: gold standard transparency creates an environment where it is safe to fail, or fail forward.
- And finally, how do we create a learning culture in our organisations, based on evidence? Culture eats strategy…
- So, if we’re going to move forward the debate on what ‘gold standard’ transparency’ looks like then I think that we need to move the debate beyond the narrow confines of money and instead think about the broader way that organisations might function or work and think about what being an open, networked nonprofit might mean for them. As a starter for 10, I think we need to debate what gold standard transparency might mean across these 7 domains. And for the avoidance of doubt, lets be clear: gold standard is not a euphemism for more. I cant agree with those who seek to give transparency a bad name by simply dumping data or producing 200 page annual reports and accounts: obfuscation via increased disclosure is a classic strategy that ultimately has the opposite effect to what is needed. Gold standard transparency is about better, not more; it is about data and narrative, about stories and explanations, so that data is not marooned and left to others to explain. Gold standard transparency is about process and how we work, not just counting outputs (or even outcomes), so that our stakeholders can ‘puncture the membrane’, so that they can see inside – a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
- We exist to benefit the public: looking ahead, we need to be able to remind people of this every day by talking about the impact of organisations and volunteering
- And finally, we need to shift the debate from what goes into volunteering and organisations (a dead end game) to instead thinking about the difference that they make. But need to have the stories and numbers to take part in that debate.