Public-value-model-SEAM-Fund-Nick-Howlett-2016

© Copyright 2016 Nick Howlett, School of Humanities, Language and Social Science, Griffith University 1
Public Value Model – Sustain Education Art Melanesia Trust
Rationale
The Sustainable Education Art Melanesia Trust (SEAM) is a small Australian non-profit
organisation (NPO) (SEAM 2016a) operating in remote communities in Papua New Guinea
(PNG). Its mission is to help these communities sustain their way of life through learning,
literacy and artistic initiatives.
The remote community context presents several challenges. PNG’s remote communities are
geographically dispersed in difficult terrain, and national and provincial governments and
other partner organisations have only limited resources available with which to assist SEAM.
Very little data other than economic indicators are available to help inform the design and
implementation of SEAM’s initiatives. But perhaps the biggest challenge is that the
communities themselves are simultaneously the operating environment and the source of
authority to operate; it is essential therefore that SEAM’s initiatives are tightly calibrated
with the needs and values of the communities. Building and maintaining community
consensus is thus extremely important for SEAM.
On top of these challenges, the factors within the communities that SEAM seeks to sustain
are deeply intertwined, and difficult to tease out. In seeking to measure the impacts of its
interventions, some of the tools used elsewhere to evaluate cultural activities and community
development are unlikely to be suitable for measuring the public value created by SEAM’s
outputs, as they may be incapable of capturing the “profound interconnections between
culture, art and environment” present in PNG’s remote communities (SEAM 2016a).
To measure the impacts of their activities, SEAM needs a tool that can give a holistic
overview of its operations, where SEAM’s impacts can be expressed across multiple
dimensions. This public value framework is one such attempt. It is well-suited to the PNG
context because it conceives of public value as a process of community consensus-building,
encompasses a tool that can be used for both planning and diagnosis, and uses multi-
dimensional indicators based on a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data gathering
methods.

Key Findings from Research Tasks
SEAM’s mission is to assist remote communities in PNG to sustain their cultural heritage,
traditional knowledge, artistic practices and natural environment by improving learning and
literacy (SEAM 2016a). SEAM’s Task Environment (TE) (Moore 1995) is the remote PNG
communities where it operates, and the relationship between the actors and phenomena being
transformed by the activities SEAM undertakes to carry out the mission.
As an Australian NPO operating in PNG, SEAM’s Authorising Environment (AE) (Moore
1995) includes actors in both countries that hold SEAM accountable, and provide it with the
legitimacy it needs to carry out its mission. The remote PNG communities that are SEAM’s
TE also make up the foundation of its AE, as they provide the authority and legitimacy
SEAM needs to operate in the TE. Other PNG actors in the AE include each of the three
layers of government. The PNG national government gives SEAM legal approval to operate
within the country and regulates SEAM’s operations under the jurisdiction of its laws. SEAM
is also bound to national policies, for example the national human development and education
objectives in PNG’s national long-term strategic plan (National Strategic Plan Taskforce
2009) and national-level education plans (Papua New Guinea Department of Education
2009). Provincial governments are another set of actors, providing a further level of
recognition and regulation of SEAM’s activities via provincial education plans.
Equivalent national legitimacy is given in SEAM’s country of domicile by the Australian
Government, in the form of legal recognition as an NPO and as a charitable trust (Australian
Government 2016a, 2016b). In both Australia and PNG, a significant actor in the AE is
SEAM’s partner Kokoda Track Foundation (KTF), another Australian NPO with a more
substantial footprint as an education service provider in some of PNG’s remote communities.
KTF has a reciprocal arrangement with SEAM for teacher training and community literacy
work (SEAM 2016d). Other AE actors include media personalities and outlets, SEAM’s
Advisory Committee (SEAM 2016c), and SEAM’s sponsors.
The design of a public value indicator framework to measure the outputs of SEAM’s
operations needs to consider the global debates around cultural indicators, and around the
concept of public value itself. The discussion around cultural indicators will be dealt with in
more detail in the Methodology section below, but for both public value and the ways it is
measured, local context is key: “[d]ifferences in social and institutional environments
between countries are difficult or impossible to account for”, writes Madden (2005, p. 310).

The initial conception of public value versus the way it has to be re-conceived to work in the
PNG context is a salient example of this. As Benington (2009, p. 233) argues, public value
was conceived of by its originator Mark Moore as a competitive marketplace model, where
public managers are central to its creation. But this is neither a useful nor accurate concept in
the case of PNG, which has a mostly communitarian polity, as well as a weak state and
‘market’ (in the conventional Western sense). Benington (2009) provides a more useful
articulation of public value for the PNG context whereby he re-conceptualises public value as
a Habermasian public sphere, in which public value is created through a collaborative process
of community consensus-building. Bennington, like Smith (2012), sees the overall level of
community engagement as a highly important measure of the process through which an NPO
generates public value in collaboration with community stakeholders. Smith (2012) adds to
this the understanding that the level of community engagement in turn is dependent on the
level of social capital available. If one or both of these are insufficient, the NPO may not be
able to sustain its operations, or generate public value in its TE. SEAM’s high level of
community engagement (as described earlier in this section) seems to bear out both
Benington’s (2009) and Smith’s (2012) respective conceptualisations of public value.
Hills and Sullivan (2006) add a note of caution to the notion of public value as a consensus-
building process: they assert that the consensus-building process is a negotiation that has the
potential to not only generate public value, but also to interfere with its creation. They argue
that tools used to measure public value are crucial: they must be themselves capable of
generating public value if they are to avoid a negative outcome. To this end, Alford &
O’Flynn (2009) promote the idea of Moore’s strategic triangle as both an empirical and a
normative tool. They see this as highly advantageous because the strategic triangle can be
used both in the design of a public value model and as a framework for assessing public
value outcomes when the model is put into practice.

Methodology
Context matters, as the discussion above has shown when designing indicators to measure the
public value of cultural activities. The plethora of contexts that cultural indicators have been
developed to measure is far too diverse to allow for a set of ‘universal’ indicators, ready to be
deployed anywhere (MacDowall 2015, p. 2). Nevertheless, a general consensus has
emerged—that local communities benefit most when indicators are developed specifically for
their circumstances. This has necessitated a shift away from quantitative data gathering, with
a parallel shift towards the integration of localised indicators within broader national or
regional frameworks. The public value indicator framework developed for SEAM (see
Appendix) thus accommodates global debates around cultural indicators, is tailored to
SEAM’s TE, and utilises mixed research methods.
As stated in the previous section, SEAM requires a set of holistic indicators to monitor the
processes and outcomes of the community engagement and consensus-building in its remote
PNG community TE(s). SEAM’s need for more holistic measures in a way mirrors the state
of the global debate around ‘instrumental’ and ‘intrinsic’ measures: with the growing
recognition that “culture is about both intrinsic and instrumental values” (Holden 2004, p.
25), indicators have been developed that are more multi-dimensional in nature, allowing for
broader insight into the public value created by cultural activities, and often built around
broader societal indicators like ‘wellbeing’ (Duxbury 2003, p. 4). The Alternative Indicators
of Well-being for Melanesia project (Vanuatu National Statistics Office 2012) is an example
of this: an attempt to build a new set of indicators for Melanesian countries that are capable
of measuring factors typically omitted by economically-focused indices like Gross Domestic
Product, namely the “profound interconnections between culture, art and environment”
(SEAM 2016a). In the context of Melanesian countries like PNG, the social, cultural,
spiritual and environmental factors that sustain communal well-being are not considered
separate and can be therefore difficult to measure discretely.
Even so, there are few socio-economic indicators available for PNG, which is perhaps a
function of PNG's dispersed population, traditional economy (Tanguay 2015, p. 162), and the
limited reach of provincial and national governments (McKeown 2006, p. 376). Some
indicators do exist, nonetheless, and of these, the most useful are the UN’s Human
Development Index (United Nations Development Program 2015), and the indicators
included in the PNG Government’s national strategic planning documents (National Strategic

Plan Taskforce 2009, Papua New Guinea Department of Education 2009). Cultural indicators
are however much more problematic: as Madden (2005) notes, a common scenario for
developing countries is for there to be no data collected at all (Madden 2005, pp. 302-305).
This appears to be true for PNG.
Bearing in mind Madden’s (2005, pp. 302-305) admonishment that extrapolating indicators
from one country to another is a fraught exercise, the public value indicator framework for
SEAM (Appendix) attempts to plug these gaps by adapting indicators from the Alternative
Indicators of Well-being for Melanesia project (Vanuatu National Statistics Office 2012).
These indices have been used because they “incorporate the strengths of local indigenous
cultures” (MacDowall 2015, p. 3, in MacDowall, Badham, Blomkamp & Dunphy 2015), an
objective which is broadly consistent with SEAM’s own goals.
The public value framework’s values matrix is divided up into four categories of public
value: economic, social, environmental and cultural. Each value category contains a set of
goals, and in turn, the public value created by each goal is measured against a set of
indicators. Because the boundaries between value categories are fluid and interconnected in
SEAM’s TE, some goals and indicators are shared across two or more value categories.
The Economic value category firstly measures SEAM’s ongoing financial viability through
funds and in-kind assistance received from donors and partners. Primarily though, this
category is intended to quantify both ‘use’ and ‘non-use’ economic benefits (Throsby in ed.
de la Torre 2002, p. 104) that participants and their communities gain from taking part in
SEAM’s programs.
For the Social value category, the focus is on social networks and social capital (Bourdieu
1977). A number of the indicators are based on those used in education (in particular, Papua
New Guinea Department of Education 2009). Other indicators in this category are concerned
with appraising the extent to which SEAM’s programs have helped build relationships
between participants and other community members, for example the number of micro-
enterprises established, or the extent to which community members use these micro-
enterprises. Social network proximity is also measured, to ascertain the impact of
participation in SEAM’s activities on bonding and bridging social capital and social
interactions such as reciprocity (Gittell and Vidal 1998 in Woodcock and Narayan 2000).

The indicators for the Environmental value category are less straightforward, as they mostly
consist of proxy indicators of environmental value, and environment and culture are strongly
interlinked, as discussed earlier in this section. Examples of indicators from this category
include the number of people who have an indigenous first language, an indicator which
represents a respondent’s level of access to a traditional worldview. An increase in number of
speakers with a local first language, for example, may show that SEAM is providing public
value by contributing to the integrity of the traditional knowledge that sustains a remote
community.
The final Cultural value category might conceivably be said to contain the other categories in
the PNG context, given SEAM’s central remit of cultural preservation, and the
interconnectedness of culture, society, economy and environment. For the purposes of this
public value framework, however, the cultural indicators here are more specific measures of
the extent to which SEAM’s programs are helping community members to acquire (or
indeed, to retain) traditional cultural knowledge. For example, one indicator assesses cultural
literacy, by assessing the strength of knowledge of traditional art forms, songs, games, stories
and other forms of cultural expression. The cultural indicators have been adapted from the
Alternative Indicators of Well-being for Melanesia project (Vanuatu National Statistics
Office 2012).
The indicators use a mixture of quantitative and qualitative research methods to gather their
data. The Economic value category indicators are mostly numerical, counting for example the
number of participants enrolled or graduating, or the total value of donations received.
Another quantitative method used, in the Social value category, is degree of social network
proximity and homophily, which are statistical measurements derived from empirical
observation of social interactions (McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook 2001, p. 418). In the
other value categories, quantitative indicators commonly used in education are used, such as
enrolment, matriculation, continuation, and literacy rates. Changes in these rates over time
may provide quantify the performance of SEAM’s programs.
There are limits to what quantitative methods can record, however, so the inclusion of
qualitative research methods helps to capture the more localised, harder-to-count impacts of
SEAM’s interventions. Holden (2004) notes that open-ended qualitative methods are useful
for describing the “affective elements of cultural experience, practice and identity” (Holden

2004, p. 59). Capturing greater nuance is especially important in SEAM’s remote community
TE(s), where there is considerable overlap between value categories and indicators.
The public value framework uses a number of qualitative research approaches, including
participant self-assessments, focus groups and interviews. Particularly important to the
assessment of SEAM’s outputs are measures of the quality of each intervention. As the name
suggests, these can only be gathered through the use of techniques such as interviews and
focus groups; they are significant because they also a tool for making incremental
improvements to SEAM’s strategic triangle, as they allow for the qualitative assessment of
SEAM’s operational capacity by its TE and AE simultaneously, an approach recommended
by Alford & O’Flynn (2009).

Annotated Bibliography
Alford, J & O'Flynn, J 2009, ‘Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and
Emergent Meanings’, International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 32, no. 3-4, pp.
171–191.
This journal article is a critical re-evaluation of Mark Moore’s concept of public value. It
examines how public value has been understood and used in the years since Moore first
articulated it as a framework for strategic management for use by public managers. The
article is mostly concerned with redressing critical misconceptions of the concept, and
considering its success as a paradigm within the field of public management. For the task of
developing of a public value model, however, the article’s most relevant contribution is in
highlighting the serviceability of the strategic triangle as a means of aligning value,
legitimacy and operational feasibility. The article finds that arguments that posit public value
as an either ‘normative’ or an empirical theory wrongly assume a zero-sum logic; the
strategic triangle can be used to describe both what managers should do (the normative), and
what they actually do (the empirical); not only can it be to form a strategy, it is also
extremely useful as a framework for assessing the execution of that strategy. To this end, the
article also gives due consideration to the literature on public value as performance
management.
Benington, J 2009, ‘Creating the Public In Order To Create Public Value?’, International
Journal of Public Administration, vol. 32, no. 3-4, pp. 232–249.
The majority of the literature on public value—starting with Mark Moore’s original
articulation—conceptualises public value within a model where individual consumers interact
within a competitive marketplace. This journal article has been chosen because it proposes
that public value is best conceived of and carried out communally, through a Habermasian
public sphere model, in a deliberative democratic process. This alternative conceptualisation
of public value moves the focus away from individual interests to a more broadly-defined
notion of public interest, and is better suited for use in building a public value model for use
in the PNG context, where most aspects of society are organised on a communal basis. The
article also points out that public value thus considered is more inclusive of the needs of
future generations because it focuses on outcomes measured over the medium– to long–term.

Similarly to Smith (2012), the article also contends that public value is formulated through a
process of consensus-building and deliberation, and is co-produced by active engagement
with civil society. Instead of hierarchical models, the article submits that public value
creation is largely organised through collaborative networks.
Hills, D & Sullivan, F 2006, Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches, The Work
Foundation, London.
An attempt to sketch out a practical framework for operationalising public value, this
background paper begins by looking at the challenges inherent in the public value approach,
and then offers a generic framework for measuring public value that addresses these
challenges. The key consideration of the paper is the difficulty presented by public value
being both a tool of bureaucracy and a process of democratic deliberation. This sets up a
tension that is hard to resolve when seeking to apply public value in practice, because the
process of creating public value doesn't follow a linear model of causality, but is instead a
negotiation that can either generate or interfere with the creation of public value itself. To
address this, the paper suggests that tools for measuring public value should be used that are
themselves capable of generating public value. This is to be done, the paper indicates, by
incorporating in them the core concepts of appropriateness, transparency, democracy, equity,
authorisation and trust, and through careful monitoring over the course of planning and
implementation. The paper’s generic public value framework gives a number of
methodologies that are particularly suited for use in a developing country context.
Smith, SR, 2012, ‘Nonprofit Organizations and Creating Public Value’, Proceedings of the
Creating Public Value in a Multi-Sector, Shared-Power World Conference, July 2012,
Humphrey School of Public Affairs at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Most of this conference paper is given to charting the changing relationship between
governments and non-profit organisations (NPOs) following the 2008 global financial crisis
in the United States, through a public value lens. Nevertheless, the paper raises several points
about public value and NPOs that are pertinent to the design of a public value model for a
developing country NPO. The paper’s most applicable insight for a developing country NPO
context is that the public value created by an NPO is contingent on its capacity for deep

community engagement. This means having not only volunteers from the local community,
but also community members on the advisory committee and on the board of directors. There
is a proviso, however: a high level of engagement is only possible if the community
possesses sufficient social capital. Insufficient social capital means the NPO’s ability to
fundraise, gain volunteers and effect change may be difficult to sustain. If strong levels of
social capital and community engagement are both present, the paper argues, then the NPO
will be able to facilitate the community consensus-building and deliberation critical for the
generation of public value.

Reference List
Alford, J & O'Flynn, J 2009, ‘Making Sense of Public Value: Concepts, Critiques and
Emergent Meanings’, International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 32, no. 3-4,
pp. 171–191.
Australian Government 2016a, ‘Current details for ABN 31 167 179 590’, Australian
Business Name Lookup, viewed April 8, 2016,
https://abr.business.gov.au/SearchByAbn.aspx?abn=31167179590
Australian Government 2016b, ‘The Trustee for the SEAM Fund’, Australian Charities and
Not-for-profits Commission Register, viewed March 28, 2016,
https://www.acnc.gov.au/RN52B75Q?ID=02B0288E-2996-442D-9106-
8B7D51A480D5&noleft=1
Badham, M 2009, ‘Cultural indicators: tools for community engagement?’, The International
Journal of the Arts in Society, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 67–75.
Benington, J 2009, ‘Creating the Public In Order To Create Public Value?’, International
Journal of Public Administration, vol. 32, no. 3-4, pp. 232–249.
Bourdieu, P 1977, Outline of a theory of practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Duxbury, N 2003, ‘Cultural Indicators and Benchmarks in Community Indicator Projects:
Performance Measures for Cultural Investment?’, Proceedings of the Accounting for
Culture: Examining the Building Blocks of Cultural Citizenship Conference,
Gatineau, Québec, 13-15 November 2003, pp. 1–24.
Gittell, R and Vidal, A. 1998. Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a
Development Strategy. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Hills, D & Sullivan, F 2006, Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches, The Work
Foundation, London.
Holden, J 2004, Capturing Cultural Value: How culture has become a tool of government
policy, Demos, London.
MacDowall, L 2015, ‘Introduction: Making Culture Count’, in Making Culture Count: The
Politics of Cultural Measurement, Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 1–5.
MacDowall, L, Badham, M, Blomkamp, E & Dunphy, K 2015, Making Culture Count: The
Politics of Cultural Measurement, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Madden, C 2005, ‘Cross-country comparisons of cultural statistics: Issues and good practice’,
Cultural Trends, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 299–316.
McKeown, E 2006, ‘Modernity, Prestige, and Self-Promotion: Literacy in a Papua New
Guinean Community’, Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 366-
380.
McPherson, M, Smith-Lovin, L & Cook, JM 2001, ‘Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social
Networks’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 415–444.

Moore, M 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Harvard
University Press.
National Strategic Plan Taskforce 2009, Papua New Guinea Vision 2050, Port Moresby:
Papua New Guinea Government, viewed 29 March 2016,
http://www.education.gov.pg/quicklinks/documents/edu-plans/png-2050.pdf
Papua New Guinea Department of Education 2009, Achieving Universal Education for a
Better Future: Universal Basic Education Plan 2010–2019, Port Moresby: Papua
New Guinea Department of Education, viewed 24 March 2016,
http://www.education.gov.pg/quicklinks/documents/edu-plans/ube-plan-2010-
2019.pdf
SEAM 2016a, About SEAM, Viewed March 24, 2016, http://www.seamfund.org/about-
seam/
SEAM 2016b, Homepage, Viewed March 24, 2016, http://www.seamfund.org/
SEAM 2016c, Our Advisors, Viewed March 24, 2016, http://www.seamfund.org/our-
advisors/
SEAM 2016d, Working with KTF, Viewed March 24, 2016,
http://www.seamfund.org/working-with-ktf/
Smith, SR, 2012, ‘Nonprofit Organizations and Creating Public Value’, Proceedings of the
Creating Public Value in a Multi-Sector, Shared-Power World Conference, July 2012,
Humphrey School of Public Affairs at University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
Tanguay, Jamie 2015, ‘Alternative Indicators of Wellbeing for Melanesia: cultural values
driving public policy’, in MacDowall, L, Badham, M, Blomkamp, E & Dunphy, K,
2015, Making Culture Count: The Politics of Cultural Measurement, London,
Palgrave Macmillan
Throsby, David 2002, ‘Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts in the Economics of
Cultural Heritage’, in de la Torre, M (ed.) 2002, Assessing the Values of Cultural
Heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
United Nations Development Program 2015, Papua New Guinea Human Development
Indicators, viewed 2 April 2016, http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/PNG
Vanuatu National Statistics Office 2012, Alternative Indicators of Well-being for Melanesia:
Vanuatu Pilot Study Report 2012, Port Vila, Vanuatu National Statistics Office,
viewed March 28, 2016,
http://www.vnso.gov.vu/images/Special_Report/Altinative_Indicator_of_Wellbeing/
Alternative_Indicators_of_Well-being.pdf
Woolcock, M & Narayan, D 2000, ‘Social Capital: Implications for Development Theory,
Research, and Policy’, The World Bank Research Observer, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 225–
249.

Appendix – Public Value Indicator Framework for SEAM Trust
Mission Statement
To help Papua New Guinea’s remote communities sustain their cultural heritage and environment, by supporting learning and literacy.
Vision Statement
SEAM’s vision is for the profound interconnections between culture, art and environment in Papua New Guinean communities to be sustained for future generations through learning and literacy.
Key Principles
• That literacy is the key to cultural development;
• That knowledge generation begins with creative engagement;
• That the education of girls must be actively fostered;
• That community participation and leadership is essential for success.
VALUES MATRIX
Value Categories Goals Indicators
Economic Ongoing ability to meet costs of SEAM
Fund’s programs
• Total value of private donations received per annum
• Total value of financial assistance from partner organisations received per annum
• Total value of in-kind, non-financial assistance from partner organisations received per annum
To ensure that the art and cultural heritage
of PNG’s remote communities is preserved
and maintained for future generations
• Degree of recognition by community members of existence, option and bequest benefits (i.e. ‘non-use’ economic
benefits, attained via qualitative methods e.g. focus groups/interviews)
• Total value of traditional artworks sold locally and in external markets
• Self-assessment by participants estimating economic value of participation in SEAM programs
To increase literacy levels in school-age
children and adults in remote communities
• Total number of SEAM participants in formal employment, pre- and post-participation
• Occupations pre- and post-participation participation in SEAM programs
To increase vocational and adult learning
opportunities in remote communities
• Occupations pre- and post-participation in SEAM programs
To increase opportunities for micro-
enterprise training in remote communities
• Total number of SEAM participants running micro enterprises, pre- and post-participation
To increase opportunities for distance
learning in remote communities
• Total number of students engaged in distance-learning
Social To ensure that the art and cultural heritage
• Total number of locations running ‘Making Books’ program
• Total number of students with access to ‘Making Books’ program, disaggregated by age and gender
• Participants’ performance on learning assessments
• Extent and quality of community participation in ‘Making Books’ program
To ensure schools in remote communities
have adequate education resources
• Total number of students with access to ‘School-in-a-box’ containers, disaggregated by age and gender
• Extent and quality of community participation in ‘School-in-a-box’ program (assessed by focus group, interview)
• Percentage of children of primary age enrolled in school, disaggregated by gender
• Percentage of children of secondary age enrolled in school, disaggregated by gender
• Number of pupils by school level, disaggregated by gender
• Student intake and continuation rate from primary to secondary schools, disaggregated by gender
• Student repetition rates by grade and level in primary school, disaggregated by gender
• Completion rates for primary and secondary school, disaggregated by gender
• Participants’ performance on literacy assessments, disaggregated by gender and age (i.e. child/adult)
• Extent and quality of community participation in literacy program

• Social network use/degree of proximity in social networks of SEAM participants, pre- and post-participation
To increase vocational and adult learning
opportunities in remote communities
• Total number of vocational/adult learning workshops held
• Total number of participants of vocational/adult learning workshops, disaggregated by gender
• Total net urban migration rate (measure of push/pull urbanization)
• Participants’ performance on learning assessments, disaggregated by gender
• Extent and quality of community participation in vocational/adult learning workshops
To increase opportunities for micro-
enterprise training in remote communities
• Total number of micro-enterprise workshops held
• Total number of participants of micro-enterprise workshops, disaggregated by gender
• Total net urban migration rate (measure of push/pull urbanization)
• Total number of micro-enterprises established post-participation, disaggregated by gender
• Extent and quality of community participation/interaction with micro-enterprises
• Extent and quality of community participation in micro-enterprise workshops
To increase opportunities for distance
learning in remote communities
• Total number of distance learning students, disaggregated by gender
• Participants’ performance on learning assessments, disaggregated by gender
• Extent and quality of community participation in distance learning program
Environmental To preserve the knowledge, history and
skills that sustain the integrity of PNG’s
remote communities and their natural
environment for future generations
• Number of speakers who have indigenous first language (language model indicative of level of access to traditional
worldview)
• Location of family burial ground
• Local language names for flora and fauna
• Knowledge of traditional planting season(s)
• Strength of knowledge of traditional artworks, oral histories, songs, games, stories, dances and ceremonies
• Participants’ performance on learning assessments
Cultural To ensure that the art and cultural heritage
• Total number of titles produced by ‘Making Books’ program
• Total number of ‘School-in-a-box’ containers distributed
• Total number of students with access to ‘School-in-a-box’ containers, disaggregated by age and gender
• Speakers who have indigenous first language
• First language learned
• Name of great grandfather and grandmother
• Location of family burial ground
• Local language names for flora and fauna
• Knowledge of traditional planting season(s)
• Strength of knowledge of traditional artworks, songs, games, stories, dances and ceremonies
• Number of traditional ceremonies being performed
• Number of traditional artworks produced
• Number of people producing traditional art, disaggregated by age and gender
• Performance of participants on learning assessments
• Level of engagement of participants (qualitative measure gathered via interview or focus group)
• Student intake and continuation rate from primary to secondary schools, disaggregated by gender
• Student repetition rates by grade and level in primary school, disaggregated by gender
• Completion rates for primary and secondary school, disaggregated by gender
• Participants’ performance on literacy assessments, disaggregated by gender and age (i.e. child/adult)
• Extent and quality of community participation in literacy program

Public-value-model-SEAM-Fund-Nick-Howlett-2016

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to Public-value-model-SEAM-Fund-Nick-Howlett-2016

Public-value-model-SEAM-Fund-Nick-Howlett-2016