www.bakertilly.co.uk
Jim Clifford OBE
Scientific and Technical Chair, GECES Sub-group
Co-founder and Chair, IAAM Adoption ...
2
Programme
1. What is social impact and how we measure it ?
2. The standardisation debate
3. The opportunities and the ri...
What is social impact.......?
Views from Maas and Liket “Do we know what we are talking about”
at ARNOVA 2011
Four key ele...
Definitions from the GECES report
Social Relating to individuals and communities, and the
interaction between them; contra...
Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts
Where do outcomes fit ?...
Primary Secondary
5
Why measure ……?
Plan
Engage
Monitor
and control
Improve
Report and
learn
Internal
External
• For funders (commissioners) i...
What is “good” measurement…..
For measurement to be effective it must be:
• relevant: related to, and arise from the outco...
Impact measurement:
How does it work ?
Impact = Σ Outcomes – (deadweight + alternative attribution + displacement)
Deadwei...
What’s happening out there…..?
• Developing the discussion and
the network at the “top table” –
GECES sub-group is part of...
Standardisation: help or hindrance
Help ?
• Comparability
• Benchmarking for
improvement
• Supported investment
decisions
...
The search for standardisation…
11
The search for standardisation…
12
The search for standardisation…
13
The search for standardisation…
14
The search for standardisation…
15
The search for standardisation…
16
……..and then…
…risks and opportunities..
Timing
• Actual measurement is needed and is
happening
• Standardisation is being...
And the key message of impact
measurement……..?
Story-telling
..by social enterprises
…about their worlds
……in the ways tha...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Wd jim clifford - Impact Evaluation by Social Enterprises: Measuring the un-measurable

756 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
756
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
20
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Evaluating outcomes is founded on this well-known flow which describes the work of a non-profit enterprise.The enterprise takes in inputs: cash, assets, intellectual property, and use these to undertake activities focussed on bringing about given benefits to its intended beneficiary group.It achieves outputs: the immediate interfaces with those beneficiaries: the number of people seen, of families helped, over what period.Through those outputs, outcomes are achieved in the beneficiaries’ lives. These may also be effects in the view of a local authority, a state agency, or other parties. The outcomes may be primary - immediate, directly for the beneficiary who receives the services – or secondary – longer lasting, or knock-on effects into the lives of others, family, work colleagues and friends.Any of these effects have a financial reflection. These are the evaluated impacts. Think of a typical home carer: helping them to manage and engage with some support services may enable them to sustain a part-time job – gaining financial income – may reduce the extent to which they become ill – and use health services and medicines....and so on.
  • So we take all of the outcomes, add them together, making sure we eliminate any double-counting, and make three key deductions:Deadweight – it happened, but it would have happened anywayAlternative attribution – it happened, and you helped, but it wasn’t just you, so don’t take all the creditDisplacement – it happened, you helped, but on the other hand.............An example of this can be seen in the programmes to combat childhood obesity – Witney Children’s Centre for example. The programme helps the child to be less likely to be obese as an adult. That means they work for longer, and take less time off sick. However, much as we all love grandparents [..........and my fourth grandchild arrived last week...........] those children will also live longer as pensioners, so claiming more displacement deduction for the pensions.
  • Wd jim clifford - Impact Evaluation by Social Enterprises: Measuring the un-measurable

    1. 1. www.bakertilly.co.uk Jim Clifford OBE Scientific and Technical Chair, GECES Sub-group Co-founder and Chair, IAAM Adoption (SE) E: j.clifford@bwbllp.com T: +44 (0) 7860 386081 @Clifford_Jim Impact Evaluation by Social Enterprises: Measuring the un-measurable ? For OECD Conference – Stockholm April 2014
    2. 2. 2 Programme 1. What is social impact and how we measure it ? 2. The standardisation debate 3. The opportunities and the risks
    3. 3. What is social impact.......? Views from Maas and Liket “Do we know what we are talking about” at ARNOVA 2011 Four key elements : •Value created as a consequence of someone’s activity (Emerson, Wachowicz & Chun, 2000) •Value created is that experienced by beneficiaries and all others affected (Kolodinsky, Stewart, & Bullard, 2006) •Impact is the sum of both positive and negative effects (Wainwright, 2002) •It must be judged against a benchmark of what would have been the status without the activity (Clark, Rosenzweig, Long, & Olsen, 2004) 3
    4. 4. Definitions from the GECES report Social Relating to individuals and communities, and the interaction between them; contrasted with economic and environmental. 4 Social Outcome Social effect (change), both long-term and short-term achieved for the target population as a result of the activity undertaken with a view to social change taking into account both positive and negative changes. Social Impact The reflection of social outcomes as measurements, both long-term and short-term, adjusted for the effects achieved by others (alternative attribution), for effects that would have happened anyway (deadweight), for negative consequences (displacement), and for effects declining over time (drop-off). http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/expert- group/20131128-impact-measurement-subgroup_en.pdf
    5. 5. Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts Where do outcomes fit ?... Primary Secondary 5
    6. 6. Why measure ……? Plan Engage Monitor and control Improve Report and learn Internal External • For funders (commissioners) in Government • In emergent EU legislation • For prioritisation decisions • For delivery measures in contracts • For effectiveness and its improvement • For philanthropists and grant- makers • In social finance/investment • in competing for capital •..and in public scrutiny 6
    7. 7. What is “good” measurement….. For measurement to be effective it must be: • relevant: related to, and arise from the outcomes it is measuring; • helpful: in meeting the needs of stakeholders’, both internal and external; • simple: both in how the measurement is made, and in how it is presented; • natural: arising from the normal flow of activity to outcome; • certain: both in how it is derived, and in how it is presented; • understood and accepted: by all relevant stakeholders; • transparent and well-explained: so that the method by which the measurement is made, and how that relates to the services and outcomes concerned are clear; • founded on evidence: so that it can be tested, validated, and form the grounds for continuous improvement. 7
    8. 8. Impact measurement: How does it work ? Impact = Σ Outcomes – (deadweight + alternative attribution + displacement) Deadweight The outcome that would have happened anyway Alternative attribution The outcome that arose as a result of other interventions – importance of recognising the work of others Displacement The disadvantage or reduction in positive outcome, or social cost arising as a consequence 8
    9. 9. What’s happening out there…..? • Developing the discussion and the network at the “top table” – GECES sub-group is part of this • Common frameworks, e.g. • Outcomes matrix (BSC et al) • CECOP (Fr) and others • Inspiring Impact (npc) • Good Investor Guide (BSC/Investing for Good) • EVPA “A Practical Guide to Impact Measurement” (first draft) • Social Reporting Standard (Germany) • Drive from Investors and the changing Social Investment Market, • Conflicting political and cultural ideologies • E3M Impact Measurement for Social Enterprise: Common threads and differences • European Commission interest under the Social Business Initiative – GECES sub-group supporting: • PSCI £90m grant fund • EUSEFs • Influence of public sector • Influence of innovative Ses • Emerging influence of the G8 group
    10. 10. Standardisation: help or hindrance Help ? • Comparability • Benchmarking for improvement • Supported investment decisions • Engagement with outsiders using a common language • Support idea-sharing Hindrance ? • “one size fits all” • Lose the story and devalue it • Supporting false comparability • Develop a two-tier landscape 10 THINK…..Embracing something that’s workable and then developing it further avoids others introducing something less helpful………….
    11. 11. The search for standardisation… 11
    12. 12. The search for standardisation… 12
    13. 13. The search for standardisation… 13
    14. 14. The search for standardisation… 14
    15. 15. The search for standardisation… 15
    16. 16. The search for standardisation… 16
    17. 17. ……..and then… …risks and opportunities.. Timing • Actual measurement is needed and is happening • Standardisation is being sought as the market grows and needs it • G8 group should develop its proposals guided by a clear European Statement Choices: • Draw together common good SE-led practice • Move to a single protocol: one size fits all • Leave it to investors and others to determine the solution GECES sub-group report • Clear inclusive statement • Drawing together existing knowledge and diversity (10 States; 19 experts; 25+ others) • Social Enterprise-driven • Sensitive to European culture and diversity • Embracing large and small • Embracing a diversity of methodologies • With flexibility for future growth and intelligent development • As a foundation…… 17
    18. 18. And the key message of impact measurement……..? Story-telling ..by social enterprises …about their worlds ……in the ways that best suit those stories 18

    ×