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.
call girls in Vasant Kunj DELHI π >ΰΌ9540349809 π genuine Escort Service πβοΈβοΈ
Β
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
7. WHAT IS IMPACT?
β’ Impact is overall change we seek to
achieve.
β’ What we do β our outputs β designed
to deliver impact.
β’ Impact significantly bigger and more
important than evaluating, or
monitoring, or measuring.
25. MORE FROM NCVO
Website: www.ncvo.org.uk
Twitter: @NCVO | @NCVOvolunteers
Email: volunteering@ncvo.org.uk
Editor's Notes
So, if weβre going to move forward the debate on what βgold standardβ transparencyβ 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 βpuncture the membraneβ, so that they can see inside β a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
So, if weβre going to move forward the debate on what βgold standardβ transparencyβ 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 βpuncture the membraneβ, so that they can see inside β 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 weβre going to move forward the debate on what βgold standardβ transparencyβ 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 βpuncture the membraneβ, so that they can see inside β 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 β eg job substitution in public services
So, if weβre going to move forward the debate on what βgold standardβ transparencyβ 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 βpuncture the membraneβ, so that they can see inside β a real opportunity given our challenge of public understanding
People want to do good. They donβt care in which sector they do it.
So for the time precious, the cash poor, the outcome is the same: if they donβt 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. Itβs no longer good enough to say we do good in the voluntary sector.
Weβre 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 β 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. Weβre behind government on this.
And the likes of the NAO want to be able to βfollow the moneyβ. Theyβre 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 donβt sort the narrative out, someone else will do it for us. I think that this is incredibly important.
So, if weβre going to move forward the debate on what βgold standardβ transparencyβ 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 βpuncture the membraneβ, so that they can see inside β 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 β 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 β human relationships. In doing so we meet the target but miss the point
John Snow β 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 β individual, organisational, societal
We need to start thinking about theories of change, and log frames: in other words, whatβs the relationship between the changes we see in the world and the inputs that we are usingβ¦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 β 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 strategyβ¦
So, if weβre going to move forward the debate on what βgold standardβ transparencyβ 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 βpuncture the membraneβ, so that they can see inside β 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.