Upload
reana-rossouw
View
955
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Research findings of measuring the impact and return on investment of Corporate Social Investment and Development
Citation preview
CSI PROFESSIONALS BRIEFING 2014Reana Rossouw
Next Generation Consultants
Session Two:Impact Investment Index
Our Context Started in 2009 – global benchmarking – 40 models currently
being applied internationally Conclusion:
Africa needs its own solution – applicable to both the funding and development sectors
Practitioners need capacity, support and knowledge Practitioners don’t need complex methodologies or approaches
requiring specialist skills, licenced software or specific hardware or expensive solutions
The industry needs a transparent, comparable, and flexible solution that contextualises and take into consideration the complexities, relationships and fundamental development principles of our specific development context
The purpose of Impact Investment Index is to create a shared performance measurement system to be utilized by all organisations in the social investment and community development sector
The current system lacks coordination, leading to added expense, limited learning, and inadequate ability to assess shared value and collective impact
Our Objective
Why the pressure to measure?
The debate on impact and return on investment are playing out in three arenas:
In private foundations and corporate CSI divisions Aiming to be more strategic about their philanthropy, grant making
and social/community investments
In nonprofit organisations in response to pressures from corporates, foundations and government To be more accountable for the resources received and program
outcomes expected
Among international development organisations such as bilateral government agencies and intermediary organisations Seeking to improve development effectiveness and lessen
dependency on grant/development aid
Funders are increasingly asking for demonstrable results – to understand the difference they make, directly and indirectly
This trend is accelerating, as the development and in particular the funding sector is increasingly looking to pay by results – to learn from what they, and those they fund, do
It is not just donors that care about impact. In a age of competition, transparency, recessionary economies, there is growing competition for resources
Why now?
Three primary applications of Impact Assessments Prospective
Looking forward to determine whether or not the projected costs and benefits indicate a favorable investment
Ongoing Testing assumptions and projections along the way in order to
aid course correction
Retrospective Looking back to determine whether or not it was a favorable
investment given the costs incurred, and therefore to inform future decisions
Variety of purposes – our school of thought One can and should use impact data to make funding
allocation decisions across program areas You can compare programs once you get in the sector of health, but
you cannot compare health vs. arts vs. education vs. sport.
One can and should use impact data to make funding decisions within program areas
It is not about building a unifying measurement across domains, but to build a conceptual framework for understanding the biggest impact across a Rand value unit. So it is not about comparing health to education to sport or the arts, but to determine which program yields the highest return for the most effective use of resources
The conundrum Funders and non-profits often use the words “evaluation”
and “impact” loosely, stretching these terms to include any type of report on the use of funds or the results they achieve
Practitioners should distinguish between measuring performance (monitoring inputs, activities, and outputs), measuring outcomes (near-term results), and evaluating impact (long-term changes that can be attributed to the investor’s activities) as well as return on investment (benefits accrued to the investor) as a result of funds and other resources invested
What is impact “Measure of the tangible and intangible effects (consequences) of
one thing's or entity's action or influence upon another. An impact evaluation/assessment assesses changes in the well-being of individuals, households, communities or firms that can be attributed to a particular project, program or policy. The central impact evaluation question is what would have happened to those receiving the intervention if they had not in fact received the program. ”
For us this means: The broad or longer-term effects of a project or organisation’s work (also referred to as the difference it makes). This can include effects on people who are direct users/beneficiaries of a project or organisation’s work, effects on those who are not direct users/indirect beneficiaries, or effects on a wider field/aspect such as government policy, processes, systems, infrastructure or support systems
What did we want to achieve?
To provide evidence To demonstrate performance To prove accountability To show program/ investment
effectiveness To demonstrate value To empower and capacitate
communities and funders Ultimately - to alleviate,
eliminate and eradicate poverty
What we have achieved Assessed R1 billion worth of investment but also considered
all types of input resources from money to hours, products and services, infrastructure and skills and volunteerism
Across both socio economic and enterprise development sectors
Including 15 focus areas 400 programmes – from flagship to donations, once off to 3-5
year programs, sponsorships and cause related marketing, social and business enterprises
Across 15 dimensions of impact and 25 dimensions of return Developed a library of more than 500 indicators
But more than that Impact across the value chain:
Outcomes of partnerships, relationships and applied resources (to be more sustainable and effective)
Outcomes of the initiative (policy change, organisations working more effectively together reducing/alleviating/ eradicating poverty)
Outcomes at the community level (are we moving the needle against the strategic objectives/mandates indicators?)
Returns for the donor/funder (are we getting value, recognition, licence to operate, etc.)
Guiding Principles of our work Impact means impact
The goal is to understand what changes as a result of the investment from funders in communities as beneficiaries and recipients of interventions
The impact is shared The goal is to understand who is impacted along the impact value chain –
including funders , intermediaries and beneficiaries Impact includes and involve all stakeholders
Analysis must be comprehensive. Instead of cherry picking something that’s working and leaving out what is not, the analysis should include all aspects of impact and those impacted
Results must be transparent Companies should report to their investors, and investors should aggregate and
report results. What is left out should be stated. Assumptions and sources should be stated. It should be possible for a third party to replicate the analysis based on the documentation of it and get the same result.
Context matters It is harder to create a stable job in a rural area than in a city. The qualitative
and quantitative context should be provided to inform the impact as well as an understanding of how much of the problem may exist or remain.
Challenges remain There are two main challenges to measuring impact
One: how to do it well Two: how to do it cheap
Getting both to happen can be done in either of two ways:
Force it, by making it a requirement Or attract it, by creating an environment in which the parties
whose efforts are necessary to make it happen want it
1
• Shared measurement system• Provides a menu of common indicators and a common platform to report on
different outcomes and indicators
2
• Comparative performance system• Involves asking participants to report on the same indicators, using the same
process and measure to compare performance
3
• Adaptive learning system• Supports ongoing collaboration and learning among organisations to align
efforts and goals, and to measure common outcomes and indicators
The breakthrough – a Comparative Performance System
The Outcome: The Impact Investment Index
Our process for impact assessment
•Design the assessment•Conduct the assessment
•Collect the information needed about impact
• Identify and calculate the difference that was made and assess how and why it was made
•Understanding the difference/change the funder wanted to make. Who the intermediaries were that was supported and who beneficiaries was that was affected
•Share and act on learning and results
•Seek to improve the investment and development practice
4 Review
1
Plan
2
Do
3
Assess
Impact Value Chain - Our FocusHierarchy Inputs Activities and
OutputsOutputs and Outcomes
Impacts Returns
Definition Resources invested (e.g. money, skills, hours, infrastructure, services, products, etc.)
The activities whose effects are to be measured.Goods and services generated by the use of inputs (short-term)
The results from activities.Expected changes in access, usage, behaviour or performance (medium-term)
Ultimate (long-term) effect of the intervention on a key dimension of the development (e.g. living standards) (long-term)
Direct or indirect business benefits/ value generated by activities/ programs/ interventions
Quantitative Indicators
Value of investment, number of hours, number of books, number of stakeholders
Number of schools, number of volunteer, number of teachers, jobs, income, etc.
% change – access to health services, education, government infrastructure, pass rates or sustainable jobs
Students finding employment, people with skills finding employed due to increased health status
Number of graduates hired by company, % change in grievance, complaints received by company
Qualitative indicators
Stakeholders satisfaction with the programme and measurable difference in their lives, environment, context
Perceptions of schools, educators, learners, community
Beneficiaries reporting benefits and application of skills, education, improved health
Quality of links to local employment opportunities, perceptions of improved socio economic status or opportunities
Changes in community / customer/ employee perceptions attributable directly/ indirectly to CSI
The Impact Investment Index - III
Inputs• How• Cash, time, in kind,
management costs• Why• Community Relations,
community investments, commercial initiatives
• Where• Geographic Location
• Who• Stakeholders Affected,
Impacted• What • Focus Areas, Investment
Portfolios
Outputs/Outcomes• Community Benefits• Qualitative• Quantitative• Dimensions of impact
(15)
• Business Benefits• Qualitative• Quantitative• Dimensions of Impact
and Return (25)
Impacts• Community Impacts• Business Impacts/Return
• Shared Value• +500 Indicators
Impact Assessment – HOW?
Impact Assessment – WHAT?
Dimensions of Impact – FOR WHOM?
How do we calculate?1. We count each and every stakeholder group2. We count each and every impact3. We distinguish between community and business impact4. Get to a figure: X:Y
Calculating Impact – The Process
Proving Impact and ReturnTHE RESULTS
Some examples of impact (1)
ED Supplier Development Program
Supplier capacity building and access to
banking services
Local Suppliers Greater output and productivity
The economic value of increased revenue and reduced costs. The increase in local
economic output could be estimated
with multiplier analysis
Employees of Suppliers
Accumulation of human capital,
empowerment and self confidence
The cost of external skills courses could
be used. The increase in wages
resulting from greater levels of human
capital. Willingness to pay for courses
Wider Local Community
Increased welfare – i.e. lower
unemployment, improved health,
education
The value of reduction in public expenditure
on health care services and
unemployment benefits
Some examples of impact (2)
Rural electrification of village
Local businesses Greater output and productivity
The economic value of increased revenue and reduced
costs. The increase in local economic output could be estimated with multiplier
analysis
Local Students Improved quality of education, better grades
Increased wages resulting from improved education levels
Local Households Increased communications, and quality of life Monetary value of savings
Investor/Donor
Increased publicity
Increased employee morale, participation, skills development
Value of increased publicity
Value of retained employees
Some examples of impact (3)
Training of local farmers
Farmers and their families
Greater output and productivity, income and
empowerment
The economic value of increased
revenue and reduced costs.
The increase of local economic output could be estimated with
multiplier analysis
Local Authorities Increased tax revenue
The value of increased income
tax and export duties
Local Consumers and Communities
Improved quality and quantity of
food
The value of increased
consumption
The value of increased savings
The value of Increased quality of life, in particular health which lead
to increased productivity
IntermediaryIncreased income,
increased employment
The value of leveraged resources
Attraction of new resources/donors
Value of salaries
Value of publicity
How much was spent – Where?
Spent per: Year, focus area, region
Testing Perceptions
Assists in a meaningful way with rural de...
Assists win a meaningful way with skills ...
Assists with bursaries and further educati...
Assists, in a meaningful way, with educat...
Assists, in a meaningful way, with improv...
Assists, in a meaningful way, with SMME ...
Assists, in a meaningful way, with the figh...
Assists, in a meaningful way, with youth ...
Contributes, in a meaningful way, to com...
Is serious about community development ...
Provides training (learnerships, skills tr...
Supports community development projects
Supports local cultural activities
Supports local development organisation...
Supports local sports development activities
Com
mun
ity D
evel
opm
ent
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
35%
32%
36%
47%
27%
34%
24%
37%
27%
49%
24%
49%
25%
49%
35%
45%
55%
43%
37%
41%
41%
48%
46%
57%
47%
49%
50%
46%
49%
47%
19%
12%
20%
16%
33%
25%
27%
17%
14%
25%
28%
18%
Perceptions - Community Devel-opment:
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral
I have the opportunity to provide feedback into or about Nedbank’s community investment and development plans and activities
I receive enough information about Nedbank’s community investment and development plans and activities
Nedbank creates long term value for the community and country’s economy
Nedbank has a positive relationship with the community
Nedbank makes a greater contribution to the community than other financial companies in South Africa
Nedbank’s communications with the community are open and honest
Nedbank’s community projects make a positive contribution to the livelihoods of people and communities
Nedbank’s social and environmental performance is better than other financial companies in South Africa
Overa
ll Perc
eption
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%100%
23%
21%
42%
43%
28%
33%
58%
28%
37%
37%
49%
50%
37%
41%
38%
44%
22%
22%
9%
7%
35%
26%
4%
26%
15%
16%
Perceptions - Nedbank at a Glance:
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral
Disagree Strongly Disagree
Testing Needs and Recommendations
Art
s
Bur
sarie
s
Bus
ines
s D
evel
opm
ent
Chi
ldre
n
Cul
ture
Edu
catio
n
Em
erge
ncie
s an
d D
isas
ters
Ent
repr
eneu
rs
Env
ironm
ent
Hea
lth
Hou
sing
Infr
astr
uctu
re
Job
Cre
atio
n
Phy
sica
lly C
halle
nged
Saf
ety
and
Sec
urity
Ski
lls D
evel
opm
ent
The
Age
d
Wom
en
You
th
Oth
er
Community Investment Areas
0%
5%
10%
15%
1%
6%
5%
7%
2%
14%
1%
7%
6%5%
2%2%
8%
5%
1%
9%
4%4%
9%
2%
Community Investment Areas - Recommended by Stakeholders:
Ba
nk
Ch
arg
es
an
d A
cce
ssib
ility
Ca
pa
city
Bu
ildin
g -
Co
un
selli
ng
Ca
pa
city
Bu
ildin
g a
nd
Fu
nd
ing
Co
mm
un
ity E
ng
ag
em
en
tE
du
catio
nE
du
catio
n a
nd
Ba
sic
Se
rvic
es
En
viro
nm
en
tF
un
din
gH
ea
lthIn
fra
stru
ctu
re D
eve
lop
me
nt
Job
Cre
atio
nJo
b C
rea
tion
, Po
vert
y A
llevi
atio
n a
nd
Yo
u...
Lo
ng
Te
rm C
om
mu
nity
De
velo
pm
en
t Su
p...
Po
vert
y A
llevi
atio
nS
kills
De
velo
pm
en
tS
kills
De
velo
pm
en
t an
d E
du
catio
nS
kills
De
velo
pm
en
t an
d J
ob
Cre
atio
nS
kills
De
velo
pm
en
t an
d S
ma
ll B
usi
ne
ss ..
.S
kills
De
velo
pm
en
t, Jo
b C
rea
tion
an
d P
ove
r...
Sp
on
sors
hip
- A
nim
al W
elfa
reS
po
nso
rsh
ip -
Ed
uca
tion
Sp
ort
s D
eve
lop
me
nt
Yo
uth
De
velo
pm
en
t
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
4%
2%2%2%
11%
2%
4%
18%
4%
5%
2%2%2%
9%
5%
2%2%2%2%2%
15%
2%2%
Stakeholder Needs' Categories:
Testing ExpectationsCommunity Investment Areas
Focus Area Number of Responses Ranking
Education Education 91 1
Top 10
Skills Development Education 62 2
Youth Community Development 56 3
Job Creation Economic Development 52 4
Entrepreneurs Economic Development 46 5
Children Community Development 44 6
Bursaries Education 42 7
Environment Environment 40 8
Business Development Economic Development 36 9
Health Health 35 10
Physically Challenged Community Development 33 11
Bottom 10
Women Community Development 29 12
The Aged Community Development 25 13
Housing Infrastructure 16 14
Infrastructure Infrastructure 11 15
Other Other 11 16
Culture Community Development 10 17
Arts Community Development 8 18
Emergencies and Disasters Disaster Relief 5 19
Safety and Security Safety and Security 4 20
Comparing and Benchmarking Across Industry Across Focus Areas Across Perceptions Including local and global benchmarks
Vision, Mission, Strategy and Policy, guidelines, frameworks
Strategic intent, objectives, mandate Focus Areas Grant making criteria Beneficiaries Intermediaries Operational alignment and integration Governance and compliance Reporting structure Budget and resources Monitoring and evaluation Employee Volunteerism Marketing, communication and
awareness Sponsorship, donations and cause
related marketing Partnerships Recognition, Awards, perceptions Future focus, GAP and SWOT analysis
Strategic and Operational ReviewTheory of change to measure impact
Co-define and co-develop indicators to measure impact
Co-Development of impact assessment guidelines
Section One: Basic information:
Project Name: Project Budget:
Project Owner: OrganisationProject Manager:Contact Details:
Project Description and Specific Outcomes:
Section Two:
Perceptions of Nedbank:
In your opinion – what do you think Nedbank gained/ benefitted by funding this program?In other words what was Nedbank’s return on investment from funding this program?
What do you think about or is your opinion or impressions of Nedbank as a funder?
What do you think Nedbank can do in future to be a better funder?
Do you think the Nedbank Foundation engage in a respectful, honest, approachable way?
Do you know what the Nedbank Foundation Corporate Social Investment strategy is and do you think it is applicable in the South African context?
Do you have any other comments or feedback or suggestions for the Nedbank Foundation?
Section Three:Stakeholders who benefited or were impacted by the program
Qualitative Impact Qualitative Impact Qualitative Impact Qualitative Impact Qualitative Impact Quantitative Impact
Stakeholder 1 Stakeholder 2 Stakeholder 3 Stakeholder 4 Stakeholder 5 Section Four:Specific aspects of Impact:
Economic Impact Environmental Impact Social Impact
Short Term Impact Medium Term Impact Long Term Impact Positive Impact Negative Impact Combined Impact Intended Impact Unintended Impact Any other Impact Section Five:Lessons learnt, insights, additional comments, feedback, suggestions
Section Six:Consultants Comments
Section Seven:Scores:
SG:NF:AOI:
EC:EN:SO:
S:M:L:
P:N: C:
I:UI:OI:
T
Transparency in assessmentSection One: Basic information:
Project Name: Project Budget:
Leliebloem House Child and Youth Care Centre R5,6m pa
Project Owner: Organisation Project Manager: Contact Details:
Leliebloem House Child and Youth Care Centre Francisco G Cornelius 021-6964947/ 0827719233
Project Description and Specific Outcomes:
Services to Vulnerable Children in Residential Child Care. Offering various therapeutic programmes to both the children and their families that eventually allows the children to be reunified with family or community.
Section Three:Stakeholders who benefited or were impacted by the program
Qualitative Impact Qualitative Impact Qualitative Impact Qualitative Impact Qualitative Impact
Quantitative Impact
Stakeholder 1Leliebloem House Child and Youth Care Centre
Basic care and protection, provided. The children’s basic needs are provided for.
84 children receive basic social, health, educational and developmental services.
Less dependent on other support (government)
Operational expenses leveraged 1
Marketing and publicity exposure1
84 Children
Leverage funds of other donors2
Jobs provided to staff2
Children cared for – behaviour and motivation changes – basic quality of life improved2
Number of staff Number of Jobs Value of funds leveraged / generated4
Section Four:Specific aspects of Impact:
Economic Impact It was a top up to the overall budget we need to provide these services. 1
Environmental Impact None evident0
Social Impact It gave these children a second chance they may not have received under normal circumstances. 1
Intended Impact Yes so that we can render the services to the children.1
Unintended Impact Media exposure and recognition as an organisation with good financial practices.1
Any other Impact
Support and leverage government funds/ resources & support work of government – providing basic services to communities1
Section Five:Lessons learnt, insights, additional comments, feedback, suggestions
We have a reputation of not saying no to opportunities. We pride ourselves in staying up to date with training for all staff and trying to do staff development programs 2 a year, if the funding permits. We have dedicated staff that could leave any time because of the poor salary structures or lack of funding, but they stay on and work in the life-space of these vulnerable children on a daily basis.
Section Six:Consultants Comments
In our opinion – some consideration should be given to assisting organisations to leverage funds better – i.e. capacity building (training and other assistance) for organisations to use funds not only for operational expenses but also to raise additional funds. Some organisations will never be sustainable, but similarly organisations should not be overly dependent on a single organisation as dependencies are created and it may be considered unsustainable development.
Section Seven:Scores:
SG: 1BOE: 1QL: 8ON: 4
EC: 1EN: 0SO: 1
S: 1M:1L: 1
P: 1N: 1C: 1
I: 1UI: 1OI: 1
T:25
Scorecard per project per focus area per rating
Community Impact
Business Return
Ratings and Rankings
Impact Across PortfoliosCommunity Impact - High:
• A & C Trust (215:3)• WESSA (98:6)
• Sports Trust (84:3)• PPT Housing (80:10)• Kidshaven (78:1)
• SIFE (73:4)• Childwelfare (69:1)
Business Impact - High:• PPT Housing (80:10)
• WESSA (98:6)• Hippo Roller (63:7)
Community Impact - Low:• Wylie (62:2)
• Epworth (54:1)• St Josephs (52:2)
Business Impact - Low:• Habitat (42:2)• Lebone (34:2)
• Leliebloem (28:1)• Childline (24:1)• Princess A (24:1)• WATTF (18:0)
Community Development Average - 65 : 3
Community Impact - High:• Doctors/Bor (82:3)• Leratong (38:0)
Business Impact - High:• Doctors/Bor (82:3)
Community Impact - Low:• Ramik-Gast (29:2)• ST Lukes (28:2)
Business Impact - Low:• Reakgona (20:1)• Ramik-Home (19:1)
Health Average - 36 : 2
Community Impact - High:• MyFmyCa (104:2)• Edutainer (90:2)• Sediba (90:1)
• Fort Hare (72:2)• SEED (69:1)
• Penreach (66:1)• Enke (64:1)
• Maths NPC (62:1)• SADET (59:1)• Asset (58:1)
Business Impact - High:• Matric Rev (75:5)• Pinelands (47:4)
• Mobile Labs (39:4)• Fundisa (47:3)
Community Impact - Low:• Bursaries (54:2)
• Leap (54:2)• Protec (54:2)
Business Impact - Low:• WC Essay (53: 1)• Heartlines (51:0)• Sparrow (47:1)
• Acorn/BHT (40:1)• Dominican (31:1)• Chess Kids (27:0)
• TracSA (26:1)• Spell It (24:0)
Education Average - 56 : 2
Community Impact - High:• LearntoEarn (56:2)• Siyabonga (47:1)
• Holdinghand (40:1)• Inchanga (39:1)• Inst Deaf (38:1)
Business Impact - High:• Siyazisa (31:3)
• Cape Winem (35:2)• RayMhalaba (30:2)
Community Impact - Low:• Readucate (24:1)• FurnTech (23:0)
Business Impact - Low:• Readucate (24:1)• FurnTech (23:0)
Skills Development Average - 36 : 1
Collective impact and return
Impact and return score cards
Ranking and Rating per impact
Docto
rs/B
or
Hippo
Roller
Mat
ric R
ev
Childw
elfar
eSIF
E
Sparro
w
0
2
4
6 54 4
3 3 3
Unintended
Lear
ntoE
arn
WC E
ssay
A & C
Tru
st
Childw
elfar
e
Epwor
th
Holding
hand
Mat
ric R
ev0
1
2
3
44
3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Short Term
WESSA PPT Housing A & C Trust0
1
2
3
4
5
6
76
5
4
Environment
WESSA
A & C
Tru
st
Lear
ntoE
arn
Sediba
0
2
4
6
8 7
54 4
Positive
Fundisa Matric Rev WESSA0
1
2
3
4
5
65
4
3
Negative
A & C
Tru
st
Holding
hand
Mat
hs N
PC
PPT Hou
sing
0
4
8
12
16
17
7 75
Economic
Business Return Community Impact
Some examples of indicators
Increased quality of life – 45 dimensions Increased social cohesion Increased access to services, infrastructure,
support, income, jobs – 45 dimensions Skills Development – 30 dimensions Infrastructure – transport, hospitals, schools,
electricity, water, housing – 60 dimensions Education – infrastructure, in general, specific –
early childhood, primary, secondary, tertiary Economic, Environmental, Social Health, education, housing, safety & security,
enterprise development, sport, agriculture, social justice, social participation, technology
Impact on individuals, communities, government, companies, funding partners
Quantitative, qualitative Volunteerism - dimensions
Mitigate climate change risk Reduce environmental accidents and remediation Reduce water use and management; waste
management and effluents Reduce and assist with energy management GHG emissions and air pollution Reduce biodiversity impacts Increase communications and engagement Increase customer satisfaction Increase access to tenders Increased access to new markets Increased reputation Increased sales Increased staff motivation Increased BEE Scorecard Strengthened value chain Maintained/obtained social licence to operate Increased product innovation and services
development
The impact of the impact assessment
Improved financial analysis and reporting as well as management capacity and operational efficiency
Improved operational efficiency and information management processes and systems
Improved board governance and oversight, understanding, knowledge and capacity
Improved M&E; reporting; communication; stakeholder relationships and partnerships
Improved operational processes from application requirements; due diligence processes; reporting requirements; responsiveness; knowledge and expertise of staff
Improved access to further investment
What our clients say - investors
Intermediaries We feel comfortable with the transparency of the process The process have added value to our own work – especially M&E
and reporting practices The processes have increased our effectiveness and own
performance; increased our learning and knowledge; built internal capacity; and increased our credibility
We believe we were assured independently by someone who can verify our claims – it validated our own beliefs
Beneficiaries We had an opportunity to talk without being judged – we could be
honest We learnt to document our own work and the contribution we
made We feel we are being trusted, being heard and someone asks our
opinion We had an opportunity to share and learn
What our clients say – intermediaries and beneficiaries
What we have learnt (1) One size of evaluation does not fit all
Funders should take extra time in their planning to learn which evaluation techniques will work with indigenous populations and specific communities.
Trying to define and measure empirical changes is difficult and “a slippery process,” Understanding, defining, qualifying and quantifying long-term social
change is an incremental effort and on-going process.
Although evaluations are significant for their organisational development, requiring intermediaries to perform them is a challenge. A suggested solution is to consider evaluation results as one – but
not the only – source of information and to couple it with knowledge, experience, strategy, and context to obtain a fuller picture.
What we have learnt (2) Impact assessments describes three relationships:
between evaluation and the funder’s approach; between evaluation and the funder’s strategy; and between the intermediary evaluation and the beneficiary evaluation.
Grantmakers may have to change their funding approach to better accommodate intermediaries’ capacity to conduct evaluations, or provide funding to help them develop it
Funders need to be clear about their overall goals and how individual investments fit within that model.
Intermediary and funder evaluations should be linked: Both partners face the same issues of inadequate resources,
coordination and expertise for conducting evaluations.
What we have learnt (3) ANY resources CAN be measured – books, wheelchairs,
buildings, time – cash and non-cash The same project can deliver varied results for different
funders How and on what you spend the money (inside the program)
has a direct influence on the impact and return The strategy and focus areas has to clearly define the return
and impact required - upfront Sustainability has to be clearly defined for exit and completion Indicators have to be developed, agreed, and documented
as part of the contractual phase Internal monitoring and external evaluation processes has to be
established and adhered too - Impact Assessment does not replace evaluation and monitoring
What we have learnt (4) You have to consider the impact of the impact assessment
on so many levels As a result of our work we can now categorically state that most
programs: Have only short term impact Those that have medium term impact are not necessarily
sustainable The long term impact is mostly social only as opposed to
economic impact which really contributes to poverty alleviation and eradication!
It is possible to determine impact and return The real value lies in independent, verifiable, assurance of social
investment expenditure, program results, outcomes and impact
There is so much return for business – we just need to prove it
What I have learnt (5)
Growth
New products
New markets
New customers
Innovation
Reputation
Differentiation
Return on Capital
Price premium /
market share
Capital efficiency
Human efficiency
Risk Management
Regulatory risk
Reputational risk
Licence to operate
Supply chain /security of
supply
Management Quality
Leadership
Employee development
Adaptability
Long term strategic view
What I now know… We all have impact – but it is not necessarily measurable and
sustainable impact Do we want economic or social impact? By implication social impact help people right now – but may not
help them in the future – which renders the project/our intervention UNSUSTAINABLE
Sometimes it is our own (CSI Practitioner’s) fault we don’t have higher impact as we decide what, who and how to fund/not to fund
The most sustainable projects/programs with the highest impact have social, socio economic and ECONOMIC impacts i.e. the number of jobs created
Sometimes there is negative impact – i.e. dependencies are created Mostly there is only short term impact –which makes our interventions
UNSUSTAINABLE
Moving from Strategic to Catalytic
Responsive Strategic Catalytic
Catalytic change for the good and
survival of mankind
Strategic to core
business
Responsive to society
Going Forward and Doing it better Impact assessment can help funders, intermediaries, and
beneficiaries they support to: Plan how their work will make a difference, and determine how
much of a difference they are making Understand what does or does not work and why and detect
unintended consequences Build an (scientific) evidence base to share with others, thus
influencing and informing debate, and increasing the sector’s body of knowledge
Challenge yourself and others by looking critically at your/their work in order to improve, to replicate good work, or to innovate and develop new processes, products and services
Inspire and motivate staff, trustees and other stakeholders including volunteers, beneficiaries, policy makers and other practitioners, funders and investors to build relationships with others, communicate added value and raise the profile of their work
In closing Involve stakeholders
Establish the scope and identify the key stakeholders impacted
Understand what changes Map the outcomes – identify the indicators
to measure impact Value things that matter
Look for evidence, don’t forget baseline and impact studies
Only include what is material Focus on agreed outcomes first then
incidental impact Do not over claim
Calculate the impact based on evidence Be transparent
Report the outcome – the good and BAD news
Verify the result Share the learning
Community Impact
Business Return
If you can count and define
indicators you can determine
impact and return
Questions and Discussion
How to start Where to start How to do it When to do it
Just do it
Contact Reana Rossouw Next Generation Consultants - Specialists in Development E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.nextgeneration.co.za
PLEASE NOTE: THIS PRESENTATION IS PART OF A LARGER BODY OF RESEARCH! THIS INFORMATION IS COPYWRITED AND THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OF NEXT GENERATION CONSULTANTS.