view issue 38

£2.95

Supported by the Building Change Trust

38,

We hope you enjoy our in-depthlook at the issue of social impactin the latest edition of VIEW..

Most organisations in thevoluntary/community sector will arguethat they are making a difference. But

proving it is another thing all together.The involvement of Brendan

McDonnell, director of Community Evaluation NI (CENI) made my task a biteasier. His role as guest editor of this issuewas to gently point me in the direction ofareas of interest around social impact. Iwas also grateful to secure the support ofthe Building Change Trust. Both organisations, along with the Inspiring Impact Programme, are carrying out valuable work as they assistcommunity/voluntary groups in the measurement of social impact and how toshow that they are making a difference.

The largest part of this issue is centred around a discussion about thepros and cons of Outcomes Based Accountability (OBA™)

On page eight of the draft Programme for Government, OBA™ champion Mark Friedman gets a special

mention. It reads: “The approach taken inthis Framework draws on the techniquesset out by Mark Friedman in his book ‘Trying Hard is Not Good Enough’, which describes a range of practical techniquessupporting an increased outcome focus inpublic policy.” Our Big Interview subject

on pages four and five is with Celine McStravick, the Director of the NationalChildren’s Bureau (NCB NI) in NorthernIreland.

Ms McStravick confessed that she ispositively evangelical about the strengthsof the Outcomes-Based Accountability(OBA™) model in social policy. She is delighted that it is embedded in the DraftProgramme for Government.

A starkly different view is taken byacadamic Toby Lowe on pages six andseven. He is not convinced by OBA™ andhe questioned the decision by the Stormont Executive to include the modelin its framework document.

From my limited research into OBA™ as a social impact model, I foundthat many organisations are not fully awareof what it is about and some of them haveexpressed concerns about the model.

It is incumbent on wider civic society to have a frank and informative discussion about the implementation of theOBA™ model into government policy.

VIEW welcomes the chance for people or groups to contact us if theywant a platform to air there views.

VIEW, Issue 38, 2016 www.viewdigital.org

By Brian Pelanco-founder, VIEWdigital

VIEW: A question of social impact

Mike Boorman: SEO copy writer, blog poster, transcriber and general man of communication.Contact [email protected] for a quote for your project

VIEWdigital hosts ‘open’ public courses and tailored in-house media training by industry experts. Ourexperienced training associates have worked for major newspapers and broadcasting organisations.This year we have worked with 3rd sector & Public sector organisations including:• Law Centre NI• Housing Executive• Equality Commission• VOYPICWe can help improve your skills to get you to tell your story. Contact Una Murphy e: [email protected] for more details and sign up on the VIEWdigitalwebsite for our training ezines.

http://www.viewdigital.org


Editorial VIEW, an independent social affairsmagazine in Northern Ireland

From an early age I have been interested in building and fixing things– anyone remember air-fix kits, or

mecanno sets? Or simply taking thingsapart to see how they work and trying toput them back together again. I supposethat’s what evaluators do; they have thisneed to find out what organisations do, understand how they work, and how theycould work better.

It’s what I’ve done for most of my career – from community developmentworker to social researcher, ending up asan evaluator – inevitable I suppose.

For the last 20 years as Director ofCommunity Evaluation NI (CENI), I’vehelped Voluntary, Community and SocialEnterprises (VCSEs) and their funders understand and demonstrate the differencethey make.

CENI is the evaluation champion andinfrastructure body for the VCSE sector. Itprovides contextualised expertise and support. We have helped hundreds ofVCSEs plan, measure and communicatetheir impact. As a result, they can deliverbetter services that make positive differences to their communities. We havealso helped funders to evidence the impactof their funding programmes and so informmore strategic investment in the VCSE sector to stimulate social change.

Two decades of inter-sector workingin Northern Ireland, means CENI has aunique understanding of the contexts, drivers and challenges experienced bystatutory bodies, funders and the VCSE sector.

We also have wide networks that giveearly warning of emerging issues and technical developments. CENI has drawnon this knowledge to create tailoredmethodologies, such as ‘Measuring Change’which enables different stakeholders to co-design programme outcomes and capture the change delivered.

Our expertise was one of the reasonsthe Building Change Trust appointed CENIto manage the ‘Inspiring Impact’ programme to promote better impactpractice in Northern Ireland.

Therefore, we can say that CENI hasdeveloped the cultural understanding andthe technical expertise to help our constituency respond to challenges of theemerging policy and funding environment.

The draft Programme for

Government (PfG) sets out how theNorthern Ireland Executive will delivertheir priorities. In a change from previousprogrammes, this one is underpinned by anoutcomes-based approach. An outcomes-based approach is challenging. Itdemands that government ministers, officials and those they fund, consider notonly what they are doing but, crucially,what difference they intend to make andthe extent to which people are better offas a result.

I welcome the challenge of an outcomes-based PfG. I am not alone inthinking it is long overdue, that said, it isvital that public funders and their VCSEsector recipients are made ready for thechallenge of an outcomes-based approachto funding.

Some departments are training staff inthe techniques of Outcomes-Based Accountability or OBA™ methodologyand identifying indicators. However, research commissioned by the InspiringImpact programme found there was a needfor further clarity around what an outcomes focus would mean in practice, inparticular, how current programme design,appraisal and monitoring systems wouldadapt to an outcomes-focused approachgiven the prevailing emphasis on financialregulation and compliance.

Outcomes are delivered by people.And those people need to be prepared.This means more than a training session intechnicalities; that is vital, but first theremust be exploration and conversationabout how the foundations of public funding will need to shift to fit the new,outcomes-based approach.

Through the Inspiring Impact programme, CENI is seeking to supportpublic funders and the VCSE sector to helpbridge this gap between the vision for an outcomes-based approach and the potential for operational delivery.

This includes consultancy support andbespoke tools, such as Measuring Up(which helps funders and VCSEs to assessthe impact readiness of their organisation)and dedicated demonstration projects to help organisations embed their impact practice.

This work is ongoing so look out forour exchange events throughout the yearwhere we will be putting the pieces together and sharing the learning.

By guest editorBrendan McDonnellDirectorCommunity Evaluation NI(CENI)

An outcomes-based approachis challenging. Itdemands thatgovernmentMinisters, officials andthose theyfund, considernot only whatthey are doingbut, crucially,what differencethey intend tomake and theextent to whichpeople are better off as a result

‘’


On page eight of the draft Programme for Government inNorthern Ireland, credit is given to

Mark Friedman, the Director of the Fiscal Policy Studies Institute in Santa Fe,New Mexico.

The quote reads:“The approach takenin this Framework draws on the techniques set out by Mark Friedman in hisbook ‘Trying Hard Is Not Good Enough’,which describes a range of practical techniques supporting an increased outcome focus in public policy.”

The Director of the National Children’s Bureau (NCB NI) in NorthernIreland, Celine McStravick, is an ardent supporter of Mr Friedman’s Outcomes-Based Accountability (OBA™) model andis delighted that it is embedded in the draft Programme for Government.

“I am positively evangelical aboutOBA™. In fact, I’m usually evangelicalabout most things,” she said.

Orignally from Portadown, Ms Mc-Stravick has spent most of her careerworking in local government. “My passionnow is making a difference. I was completely inspired by the chance to work in the UK charity, the NationalChildrens' Bureau (NCB).

“I started working in the organisationsix years ago and I am based in Belfast.When I was appointed as director of NCBin Northern Ireland, I had two staff. Wewere a pure research organisation. My jobas director was to make us much morerelevant in Northern Ireland and to respond to the need that we could see. Wecould see at that time that we were notusing evidence enough to see what worksfor children and families. We were not really developing our leadership skills andsetting out our own incomes.

“We were very much being led bywhat Westminster was giving us.

“I needed to start manipulating andguiding discussions with politicians, civilservants and the community/voluntary sector on what could and should be

different for children and young people.I asked Celine how have things

changed since she took up her position.“Things are now 100 per cent

different. We now employ about 11 peoplein Northern Ireland. It’s a mixed bag of researchers and people with a community development/policy background.

“We work with babies, children andyoung people up to the age of 21.

“Our work in this team could becommissioned work from government departments. For example, we were commissioned by the NI Executive towrite the first ever E-Safety strategy forchildren and young people. It was abouthow to keep them safe when they are online.

“We do not deliver services to children and young people. We are here tosupport and change policy and services forthem. We are not a Barnardo's.

“In a way that sets the NCB in a unique place. We can actually comment from a very robust-based evidence perspective.

“We are very proud of the Programme for Government and our rolein it. For the first time ever we are veryclear about what outcomes we want forthe population and how we are going to measure them.

She said that previous Programmeswere just a list of actions.

“This Programme doesn't list actionsyet. What is important is the process they are using and that's back to Mark Friedman.

“Mark Friedman’s book, ‘Trying Hard IsNot Good Enough’ was developed from hisfrustration as a finance guy. Money wasbeing constantly spent and the only measurement of impact was the moneyspent in a year.

“His book starts from asking what isthe outcome of what you are trying to do,how do you know you are going to getthat outcome. That is your indicator andhow are you going to measure it.

“You can't move onto the next stageuntil you get an agreement over those outcomes and indicators.

“As the process moves on, you needbravery, you need people to stand by whatthey have signed up for, because there aregoing to be really tough decisions to bemade down the line.”

I asked Ms McStravick how an outcomes-based approach would work in light of the Fresh Start Stormont Agreement and ImplementationPlan, agreed by the Stormont Executive last year, which signalled a series of funding cuts to be made acrossall government departments.

On page 19, it reads: ‘The Executive is undertaking a programme of Public Sector Reform, designed to maximise available resources and deliver enhanced services to citizens. Current reform activities are buildingupon cumulative savings of £3.7 billionachieved in the seven years from 2008-15.”

Ms McStravick replied: “I always say asmoney gets short, ideas need to get better.When there was lots of money, we could

the BIG interviewCeline McStravick, left, tells VIEW editor Brian Pelanthat she is delighted that Stormont’s draft Programme for Goverment will be using Mark Friedman’s model of Outcomes-Based Account-ability (OBA™). For the first time ever, she said, weare very clear about what outcomes we want for thepopulation and how we are going to measure them

‘’When therewas lots ofmoney, wecould justthrow it outand hope forthe best



just throw it out and hope for the best. AsI always say in my workshops, it was likeholy water, cross your fingers and hopethat it does something.

“When you have a Programme forGovernment like this you embed the valueof the impact. You are interested in makinga difference with the money. That meansyou come to a point in your decision making where you should be able to say isthat making a difference and if the answeris No, then we need to stop doing it.

“The outcomes-based approachmeans that no one person or group can doit alone. You need engagement with otherstake-holders.

I asked the NCB NI director does theOBA™ model have the power to changeoutcomes in economically disadvantagedworking-class areas?

“I think at the heart of this model willbe data and information. I think traditionally we have used data when wewanted to and avoided it when we didn't.Because we were much more comfortablein the green and orange arguments.

“My hope would be that the OBA™model will provide a neutral space for discussion, irrespective of religion.

Ms McStravick uses an area of workwhich NCB NI was involved in to underline her argument. “Groups in theColin area of west Belfast were saying thatdespite the millions of pounds being spentin their area they could not see an improvement for children and young people in this area. They had well below average in GCSE results, had high teenagepregnancies and domestic violence issues.So money wasn't the answer. When you sayto me that the money is going to be less, Isay good. I think people have used themoney to divert attention away from the real issues.

“Part of the OBA™ model, when youare in discussions with stake-holders, isfor them to think of one thing that is lowcost or no cost which could make a difference.

“In a population of over 20,000 in theColin area, we found there were morethan 90 different services for families andyoung people. When we asked the question, what impact are you having, that'swere the problem was. There were lots ofdoing activity. But how do you know youwere making a difference? That's what wecouldn't find out.

“We started using an outcomes-basedapproach in the Colin area. They wantedtheir children to feel safe and secure; to behealthy and achieve educationally. Theythen agreed to focus on six outcomes.

“As with the Programme for Govern-ment, we are going to measure impactalong the way. There are three questions.• What are we doing?• How are we doing it?• Is anyone better off?

I asked Celine had there a change ineducational attainment in the Colin area since the OBA™ approach was introduced?

“We can see a slight improvement. Youcan now see the individual level of each

child and the impact. It means that midwives and others, when they come together, can see the data.

“Some of the programmes invested in were not having an impact.That's when it’s time for a critical conversation to be held.”

As our interview drew to a close, Iasked Ms McStravick that if one was tovisit these areas of high social deprivationin 15 years, would they see a substantialchange because of the OBA™ model?

“I think you should,” she replied. “Butyou are asking me to look into the futureand I’m much more of an evidence-basedperson. I’ve worked with a health trustwho don't have the same funding problemsas the community/voluntary sector andwho were asked by the Department ofHealth to cut five per cent of their budget.How do they decide what five per cent tocut if they don't have a clear outcomes-based approach and how dothey measure it?

I also was curious to know should thecommunity/voluntary sector be concernedabout the OBA™ approach by Government. “My response is that thecommunity/voluntary sector is there tomake a change. They are not there to keepthemselves in jobs. They are there tochange people's lives and communities. Thisframework helps them demonstrate that.In a way it can absolutely build their organisation, because they can demonstrate that in a more accessible way.”

She believes that Mark's approach ishard to implement. “And it should behard. People who start to use will come toa point where their brain hurts becauseyou have to make a decision. It is mucheasier to surround yourself with paper andhave strategy upon strategy. OBA™ has a really neutral space for conversations toimplement change.

“But it takes a long time to do it. Andyou need to keep people with you alongthe way.”

Celine McStravickof the NationalChildren’s Bureau,left, with MarkFriedman; KieranDrayne, formerColin Early Intervention Project Managerand Annie Armstrong, Manager of ColinNeighbourhoodPartnership

‘It takes a longtime to do it.And you need to keeppeople withyou along the way

’




On page eight of the draftProgramme for Governmentin Northern Ireland it says:“The approach taken in thisFramework draws on the

techniques set out by Mark Friedman in hisbook ‘Trying Hard is Not Good Enough’,which describes a range of practical techniques supporting an increased outcome focus in public policy.”

US author Friedman is the Director ofthe Fiscal Policy Studies Institute in SantaFe, New Mexico

I asked academic Dr Toby Lowe, whois carrying out research work at NewcastleUniversity in the north of England, whatdid he think of the decision of the Stormont Executive to use Mark Friedman’s Outcomes-Based Accountability model (OBA™) in itsFramework document.

“There have been numerous studiesinto the implementation of Outcomes-Based Performance Management (OBPM)and they all say essentially the same thing –it’s good to talk about outcomes as part of generating a common vision, but assoon as you try and use them for performance management, they end up undermining effective practice. It is shocking that the Northern Ireland Government is choosing to adopt a version of OBPM in the face of this evidence.

“Because from the evidence that I’veseen, it strongly suggests that OBPM does not work and even the small numberof papers that find positive aspects about itare equivocal about its long term impact.The most supportive evidence says it’sgood to talk about outcomes, so it’s a useful exercise to bring partners together,to talk about what they’re trying toachieve, but there isn’t an evidence at all asfar as I can see that says that it improves outcomes for people and there’slots and lots of evidence that says OBPM undermines effective practiceand therefore makes outcomes

worse for people, particularly the most disadvantaged.” I asked Dr TobyLowe could he provide me with examplesof were OBPM hasn’t worked.

“The clearest example of this is I thinkis from a study (1) done in Australia of Results Based Accountability (RBA) by DrLynne Keevers. It’s the only study to myknowledge that is a before and after studyof the implementation of OBPM. And basically, what it said was that during theprocess of trying to formulate simple outcome metrics, the complexity of thegoals and ambitions of real people on theground got lost, so it meant that the diversity of real people’s ambitions all gotmashed up into simple goals that then prevented the workers from pursuing the diversity of those ambitions.

“In the end, all of this stuff becomesabout trying to make people behave in prescribed ways. If you set an outcome, saythat someone should have a job by the endof the intervention process, if that persondoesn’t have a job by the end of it then theorganisation that’s supposed to be delivering the work is a failure, and thenmore importantly they view the personthat hasn’t achieved that work as a failure.”

I asked Dr Lowe why are some

governments so attracted to using OBPMmethods. “Because it sounds like a brilliantidea. On the surface, the idea that you canmake people accountable for producing outcomes is like a politician’s dream. Itplays into their sense that the world iscontrollable and if only they pull the rightlevers then they can make wonderfulthings happen.

“And so imagine someone comes toyou and says, if you’re a kind of senior government person: ‘I’ve got a programmethat will guarantee you to produce theoutcomes you want’… who wouldn’t beattracted by that? It’s absolutely what senior folks want to hear because it playsinto their desire to control, and in themore positive aspects, to make the changesthat they want to see. But the trouble is,it’s just not true, the world doesn’t andcannot work like that.

“Again, it’s part of the promise thatsays you can achieve savings by focusing activity on outcomes. It sounds like a reallygood idea. So if we concentrate on onlythe things that we most care about, thatmust be a good way to prioritise our resources. So it plays in to a version of theworld that the politicians and senior civilservants want to believe in. Again, it’s justnot true. All the evidence say that if youfocus on a few targets then other thingsget worse, and because all the things are inone big interrelated system it means thatoverall things get worse.”

Does the use of OBPM methods inevitably lead to governments implementing privatisation policies, I asked.

Dr Lowe replied: “There’s a kind ofspectrum of OBPM of hard and soft. Thehard end is payment by results, so we setan objective, we turn that in to a performance indicator and if you don’tmeet that performance indicator, you don’tget paid. That’s the hard one.

“Whereas Outcome-Based Accountability (OBA™) is at the soft end.It says we will monitor your performanceagainst those indicators but there are also

‘’I’m shockedthat Stormonthas decided toadopt a versionof OBPM

A dissenting voiceAcademic Dr Toby Lowe pulls no punches as he delivers apowerful critique of an outcomes- based approach to publicpolicy in an interview with VIEW editor Brian Pelan



Dr Toby Lowe, Senior Research Associate at the Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise at Newcastle University

other aspects to the outcome-based performance scorecard, so you can tell thestory around what’s happening as well. Andit’s unlikely that just because you failed tohit the first set of indicators that wewouldn’t recommission you, but essentiallyin the end it has the same effect becausepeople who aren’t achieving against theoutcome-based accountabilities are unlikely to have their contracts renewed.

“So yes, it absolutely opens the doorto the further privatisation of services. Thereason is that as soon as you turn thecomplexity of public service into simplemetrics to be delivered, you turn the complexity of public service delivery intothe business of data production. Because inthe end all of this OBPM isn’t about producing good outcomes – it’s about producing good-looking data. That’s what’sbeing paid for.

“You know the whole ‘turning thecurve’? (the theory of turing the curve is akey feature of the OBA™ model). Thinkabout what that means? Actually, whatthey’re looking for is for the data to lookdifferent. They want the graphs to have adifferent shape. So in the end, what peopleare being paid for is to make the data look different – that’s what’s happening inall OBPM. And who are the best people at producing good-looking data? It’sthe Sercos, it’s the G4Ss because this istheir business model; working to indicatorsand ensuring that those indicators are hit.

“So how can a values-based small

voluntary organisation or a values-basedpublic sector thing work more effectivelyat producing indicators than a model atSerco or G4S?

“There is a quote in a paper writtenin 2011 by Erika Wimbush (Implementingan outcomes approach to public managementand accountability in the UK), when she says:“The overall conclusion from internationalexperience of implementing an outcomesapproach is that the journey is long andthe results are disappointing.”

“That’s so important because I wasreading the Northern Ireland Executiveframework and it says “these outcomes approaches have international currency”.It’s basing its decision on the fact that abunch of other organisations around the

world are doing it. What it should be looking at is the experience of those organisations, and overwhelming, the 100per cent clear story of those organisationsis that this doesn’t work. Particularly inAustralia.

“The tragedy of the OBPM stuff isthat they will spend a fortune on the consultants to try and make it work and itwill waste so much time. In times of austerity when people are being cut back,they’re going to waste money on a programme that will at best have no positive result, and almost worst is thatthey will waste a huge amount of everybody’s time when everyone shouldbe focused on getting the job done because that’s the most efficient thing thatthey can be doing. “

References

• 1, Keevers, L., et al. (2012),Made to measure: taming prac-tices with Results-Based Ac-countability, OrganizationStudies, 33, 1: 97–120.

• 2, 'Implementing an outcomesapproach to public managementand accountability in the UK – arewe learning the lessons? ErikaWimbush, published in the journal

‘’It opens thedoor to the further privatisation of services


VIEW, Issue 38, 2016

Aquick Google of the term “social impact” yielded 657,000,000 results in 0.50 seconds, which tells

you something about the popularity of theterm. But what does it really mean to those of us who work with local communities.

Some see it as an opportunity todemonstrate the financial value of theirwork, some prefer to focus on telling theirstory of change, and for others it’s a combination of both.

The language of impact has certainlyinfiltrated everyday life for the communityworker, commissioner, civil servant andpolitician. Everyone is talking about outcomes, impact, theory of change andlogic models. Mark Friedman (author of‘Trying Hard is not Good Enough’ and designer of “Outcomes-Based Accountability™”) has even been namechecked in the new, outcomes focused,draft Programme for Government.

Having a clear focus on the differencewe make at policy and delivery point is tobe wholeheartedly supported. Without itwe risk making investments in projects orinterventions simply because they are wellattended or “people liked it”. Asking the“so what” question is crucial to understanding what changes for people and why.

But is this focus on outcomes and impact all it’s cracked up to be? MahatmaGhandi’s words are food for thought:

“It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do theright thing. It may not be in your power,may not be in your time, that there'll beany fruit. But that doesn't mean you stopdoing the right thing. You may never knowwhat results come from your action. But ifyou do nothing, there will be no result.”

The ongoing challenge for our sectoris not just to “do the right thing” but tohave robust evidence that by doing so it isleading to tangible change for people andcommunities. However, the important, yet

often overlooked fact is that the work ofthe community and voluntary sector is, byits very nature, long term, and slow to yield results.

Here in CDHN we know that onlytoo well. Our work focuses on tacklinghealth inequalities using community development and the “fruits” of our labourcan and will take years to become evident.This leaves us and many others with adilemma – how do we prove our worth incircumstances where proof is required inthe short term, as many funding and commissioning cycles operate in one year cycles (three if you are really lucky)? Thesesame funders are often only interested inthe results for their piece, not the overallimpact that a collective or organisation can bring.

In this scenario, the tool you use, be itOutcomes-Based Accountability™, Social Return on Investment or any other of themany available, isn’t really relevant.

What seems to me to be more pertinent is the extent to which impact isat the heart of what we all do – can weclearly and concisely say what differencewe can collectively make for our peopleand communities? And are funders, commissioners and decision makers on thesame page?

Inspiring Impact is one initiative that istrying to tie all of these strands togetherwhilst ensuring that our sector has theskills and knowledge to put impact practiceat its heart.

CDHN is one of a number of network organisations that have becomechampions of the approach and are committed to bringing about change, albeitat a snail’s pace!

And in the meantime, let’s play thelong game and not get too hung up onwhat tool we use. In this case, I’m with Albert Einstein:

“Not everything that can be countedcounts and not everything that counts canbe counted.”

COMMENT

Dilemma of proving worthJoanne Morgan, Director of the Community Development Health Network (CDHN), asks isthe new focus on outcomes and social impact allthat it’s cracked up to be?

‘’Let’s play thelong game andnot get toohung up onwhat tool we use

www.viewdigital.org



QUESTIONS & ANSWERSVIEW talks to Sir John Elvidge, Fellow of the UK CarnegieTrust, about his views on the Outcomes-Based AccountabilityTM model and is he glad to see it being adoptedin the Northern Ireland draft Programme for Government

Question: Are you pleased thatStormont has adopted Mark

Friedman’s Outcomes-Based Accountability (OBA™) model?

Answer: “We need to get as close to thenatural language of the citizen as possible.It’s about government trying to work inthe language of the citizen rather than expecting the citizen to work in the language of the government. It’s really important that if you are going to try tohave a successful relationship between thecitizen and government that you establish ashared language. The Friedman approachseems to rest very clearly on that way oflooking at things.

Q: What are the challenges ofusing this particular model?

A: “There are challenges in the implementation of the OBA™ model. Youhave to make sure that your measurements are hard-edged. This is anarea were the hard work has to be done.You have to be sure that even though youare using the language of the citizen in thechanges that they would like to see in theirlives that you are still getting really solidevidence to show that you really are making a difference.”

Q: You once said that governments need to stop doingthings for people that they couldorganise and do themselves. Howdoes that perspective fit in withan outcomes-based approach?

A: “I think it fits well. If you are agreedabout what outcome you want to get itleaves open the question of the best way of getting there. The old languageof programmes for governments confined itself largely to statements aboutwhat government could do. The outcomes-based approach is much more about ashared agreement about were you want toget. This leaves much more space for discussion about what the best way is forgetting there.”

Q: Do you think the OBA™ modelshould be the only tool used byStormont or should it be one ofmany tools?

A: “I think it makes sense to have only oneover-arching framework. If you have competing models about what you are trying to do then you run the risk of creating confusion in quite a complex setof relationships both within governmentand between government and citizens. Ithink it does make sense to nail yourcolours to one framework.”

Q: Can you have an effective outcomes-based approach in lightof the Fresh Start Agreement atStormont last year which set outthe need for cuts in government departments' budgets coupled with the potential loss of 20,000 jobs under a voluntary redundancyscheme and the further implementation of welfare reform

changes in Northern Ireland?

A: I think we would acknowledge that itmakes the task harder as change is easierto make in more favourable circumstances.But the OBA™ approach is a much morepowerful stimulis to innovation than theold way of doing things. I think it’s noweasier to have creative conversations. Itbrings more value to what the community/voluntary sector can bring to the mix. The difficult circumstances open the door to a richer conversation.

Q: Have any projects in NorthernIreland being selected for financialawards under Carnegie’s EnablingState Challenge process.

The Enabling State Challenge process wasto find best practice across the Britishisles. Although we had some good submissions from Northern Ireland, none of them made it to the very last stage of receiving one of the financial awards. Overall, our key message is our optimism about the approach being adopted in Northern Ireland – both within government and across civic society. We can guaranteeour strong continuing commitment to supporting the round table process as one contribution to assisting the dialogue about focus on outcomes, fostering greater recognition of the community and voluntary sector contributions and exploring the capacityfor innovation.



Very few people will have heard ofMark Friedman. However it is verylikely that they will be hearing about

him shortly, He is quoted in the currentdraft Programme for Government produced by the Stormont executive;

The approach taken in this framework(the Programme for Government) drawson the techniques set out by Mark Friedman in his book ‘Trying Hard is NotGood Enough’, which describes a range ofpractical techniques supporting an increased outcome focus in public policy. .

In addition to this influential role inthe Programme for Government he willshortly be addressing a conference, theOutcomes-Based Accountability approach (OBA™), in Belfast. The conference, which advises us how to improve the lives of the citizens, has a£300 entry tab. However you will be rewarded with a a copy of Friedman’s newbook: Turning Curves: An Accountability Companion Reader.

Yet to open ‘Trying Hard Is Not GoodEnough’ is to instantly identify it. It is partof the long history of US self-help books.All the elements are there: A self-publishedbook, A few simple precepts, inspiring stories of the formula in operation, generalising of the model to explain all ofsociety, an extremely narrow reference listconsisting mostly of the author referencinghimself, with the rest made up of thinktanks and policy institutes.

Nowhere is there a reference to thevast body of academic literature that, although it may not present clever fixes,has the virtue of objectivity.

The new twist is that the self-helpsystem is to address not the individual butsociety. The Friedman system is outcome

based. He argues that current difficulties indelivering good services are due to confusion between the overall populationand the customer. Outcomes for the population are open ended and best understood through results, indicators andstrategies. Performance for the immediatecustomer is a narrow focus based onstrategies and performance measures.

There is much to worry about. Theprocess is seen as apolitical, arguing thatmost political movements at heart supportimproving people’s lives. Partnership isking, with issues of power and sectional interest set to one side. The assumption isthat if programme goals are met then thelives of the overall population will improve.

The assumption of a virtuous circlecould easily become a vicious one. There isno outside to this tent. The role of academic work is restricted to finding positive exemplars. There is no examination of the clash between themodel and the real world.

The book is peppered with case studies. They do not always illustrate theadvantages claimed. For example, a campaign against teen pregnancy in Tillamook county, Oregon, saw a dramaticfall. This is ascribed to unity of all the socialforces. We can accept that, but in the context of the US there must have been amajor political shift to allow sex educationin the local schools and expansion ofhealth department services. These prerequisites are beyond the event horizonof the theory.

In any case, after four years, teen pregnancy levels increased again, dismissedas the rebound effect.

There is no consideration of unintended consequences. A Boston case

study of a major campaign against juvenilehomicides boasts of reducing deaths tozero. Yet part of the mechanism was a draconian change in law enforcement, Federal laws were used to convict gangmembers and export them to Texas toserve sentences at enormous distancefrom their communities. There is no reflection on the long-term consequencesof such extreme action by the state. Oh,and Boston also had a “rebound” in killings.

So why then is Friedman model sopopular here?

We are to have a discussion about aProgramme for Government. This Programme promises instant results. Friedman cuts out all the usual checks andbalances that ensure the provision of public good. A strong element is low costand no-cost provision – round up volunteers and point them at the problem,thus escaping a great deal of governmentresponsibility and resource claims. Aboveall everyone is to be invited in for the consultation, meaning everyone will besigned up to the government programme.

There is a certain level of fantasyhere. We are all to discuss aspirationsabout health and well being. In the realworld the Fresh Start programme that cuts 20,000 jobs and slashes welfare benefits will roll out without anyfurther discussion.

In the Friedman world we all cometogether in partnership with a “can do” attitude. In the real world there are questions of power, accountability andclass that need to be addressed.

• Trying Hard Is Not GoodEnough by Mark Friedman, PARSEPublishing, 2015

BOOK REVIEW

John McAnulty, formerteacher and ex-chairman ofthe Northern Committee ofthe Irish National Teachers’ Organisation(INTO), is not impressed bythe outcome after readingMark Friedman’s book,‘Trying Hard Is Not GoodEnough’


VIEW, Issue 38, 2016 www.viewdigital.org Page11

RESEARCH

Emma Tomkinson, above, is a social impact analyst living and working inPerth, Australia. She is interested in the role of impact measurement in evidence-based policy, including policy related to social investment. Shecreated the Social Impact Bond Knowledge Box for the Centre for SocialImpact Bonds at the UK Cabinet Office and also developed the social impact bond concept for application in New South Wales, Australia

By Emma Tomkinson

My review, Outcome-based contractingfor human services, examines the evidence of the effect of

government-funded outcome-based contracts in public human services.

Outcome-based contracts in publichuman services are defined as those wheresome proportion of payment is triggeredby some measure of change in the lives ofclients. There is a lack of evidence comparing outcome-based contracts forpublic human services with other means offunding. There is also little evidence comparing the effect of payment on thebasis of one measure of outcome to another, comparing outcome-based con-tracts to grants or block-funding models.

And there is no evidence of the effect

on outcomes of changing outcome-basedpayment structures as contracts progress.

The evidence that does exist suggeststhat, given sufficient flexibility to do so,providers of services will deliver on theoutcome metrics their contracts pay for.

Outcome-based contracts developedso far have, however, struggled to create incentives to achieve the desired outcomes.

The findings indicate that while outcome-based contracts deliver themeasures of outcome for which they pay,these measures do not always reflect theintention of the contract designers, or desirable outcomes for the end-client.

Measures of outcome that were notrelated to payment did not improve andsometimes worsened. Some outcome payments created incentives for service

providers contrary to the achievement ofdesired outcomes.

For example, employment servicescontracts that were meant to increase tailoring and flexibility had the opposite effect. Some contract conditions or environments constrained providers’ abilityto affect outcomes.

The challenge for government is todefine payment metrics that represent theoutcomes they seek and that encouragebehaviour from service-delivery organisations consistent with these outcomes.

• To read Emma Tomkinson’s fullreview. go to https://journal.anz-sog.edu.au/publications/20/Evi-denceBase2016Issue1Version1.pdf

A struggleto achievedesiredoutcomes



We recently joined the debateabout how we could best support social impact by

commissioning the ‘Future of Doing Goodin the UK’. We want to use this to spark adebate across society – among communi-ties, charities, social enterprises, businessesand the state – about how doing goodshould develop in the future.

An important strand of this debate ishow funders can support work that creates real social impact.

So what does social impact mean forBig Lottery Fund?

There is a danger that social impactand social innovation can become anotherpiece of jargon in the complex world offunding. But to us, it means using our funding most effectively to make a difference to people’s lives. This is at theheart of our strategic framework – Peoplein the Lead – and has shaped our grantmaking now and into the future.

In a nutshell we have changed ourfunding approach from focusing on what’sbroken or wrong to concentrating moreon what works with communities – we believe this approach is the most effectivein creating social impact.

This shift has allowed us to fund projects that respond to needs of peoplewithin communities instead of the priorities of organisations.

This may sound like a subtle shift, but Ibelieve that moving towards people-ledgrant-making can truly create good socialimpact within communities.

It also helps us improve what we doand reflect on how we measure the socialvalue of the work we fund.

Our priority now is to use our funding to build on the strengths of peopleand the connections of existing supportnetworks around them. Collaboration is atthe heart of our grant-making.

Our thinking on social impact is alsounderpinned by some of the current workwe’ve funded. In 2008 we established

Building Change Trust to explore and testnew approaches to social issues and it’sbeen interesting to see some of the resultsof this investment.

In 2015 the Trust connected digital experts from the private sector and community groups to create six new socialinnovation projects transferring and sharing digital skills to create social impactwithin communities.

Building Change Trust is also a leadpartner in Northern Ireland on our UK-wide initiative, Inspiring Impact. This10-year initiative is led by New Philanthropy Capital and brings togetherseven organisations from the voluntary andcommunity and social enterprise sector, independent funders along with experts inevaluation and impact measurement.

This type of work is providing us with great examples of shared approaches to measuring the impact of social change and developing excellenttools for organisations to track this withintheir communities.

We are also exploring social innovation in Northern Ireland through initiatives such as the Young Foundation’sAmplify Project. Amplify is harnessing thestrengths and expertise of local people andcommunities alongside third sector organisations, civic representatives, businesses, and public services to improvesocial impact.

As all these approaches are developedand evaluated we will continue to stimulateand fund new solutions to social needs.

This means focusing more on identifying and developing the strengthspeople bring.

In practice it means sharing what welearn in a more open and accessible way. Italso requires collaborating much more effectively with people and communities tomeasure the impact of the work we fundand our understanding the difference it ismaking in communities across NorthernIreland.

COMMENT

Responding to people’s needsJoanne McDowell, Northern Ireland Director ofthe Big Lottery Fund, says its grant-making isnow focused on what works with communitiesin order to create more effective social impact

‘’There is a danger that social impactand social innovation canbecome another pieceof jargon in thecomplex worldof funding



VIEW editor Brian Pelan talks to Aongus O’Keeffe, below,about the work of the Inspiring Impact Programme in the community/voluntary sector and the challenges it faces

Aiming to inspire

Aongus O’Keeffe, who isorginally from Limerickcity, first started working

in community development bygetting involved in rural development in the west of Ireland.

“I then went to work forTrocaire in Sierra Leone inWest Africa where I got a goodgrasp of some of the issues surrounding social impact by engaging with social issues in thecountry. I moved to Northern Irelandabout six years ago.

“I am currently the Programme Leader for the Inspiring Impact programme in North-ern Ireland. Commu-nity Evaluation NI(CENI) is contracted by theBuilding ChangeTrust to deliver theprogramme. I washired by CENI tolead it and to driveit forward.

“The programme is currently funded upto the end of 2017but it has a long-term vision tosupport the sec-tor until 2020 atthe very least.

“Our vision isto transform thecommunity/vol-untary sector andhow it goes aboutdemonstratingthe impact of itswork. We trying toshift organisationsfrom doing lots ofstuff and not really reflecting on the difference that theyare making to helping them to bemore strategic andreflective.”

I asked Aonguswhat successes hehad witnessed

“I think there has been a gradual shift inthinking, both in the sector and across

government. A number of organisations thatwe support are using Inspiring Impact tohelp them think more strategically and shifthow they do things.”

What obstacles and difficulties has theInspiring Impact programme encountered?

“Many,” he replied. “It's a new way ofthinking that is trying to get organisations tobe more reflective. It can get technical. Wewant people to think about how are they

helping to improve people's lives.“Many organisations do have a

strategic vision but too often it is abox-ticking exercise and

mission drift can takethem away fromtheir vision. Alsothe pressures of financially surviving meansthat they will dowhat they haveto do to get funding.

“Two organisationswho have usedour process,Community DevelopmentHealth Network andSported, haveboth securedfunding as aresult of theirwork beingmore strate-gically focused onimpact and out-comes.

“Any organisation

that joins the Inspiring Impactprogramme, in a

way, is signing upfor a lifetime

process. It will transform how their organisations works.We are funding sevenorganisations at present.”



VIEW talks to Nigel McKinney about the work of the BuildingChange Trust in the community/voluntary sector and why theyare supporting the Inspiring Impact programme

Champion of change

Our discussion with Nigel McKinney, Director of Operations at BuildingChange Trust, started with eliciting his

views on the Outcomes-Based Accountabilitymodel which is at the heart of the Programmefor Government in Northern Ireland.

“We make a distinction about what MarkFriedman and his Outcomes-BasedAcountability (OBA™) model is doing at thehigh strategic level and what are the implicationsfor outcomes-based approaches when it comesdown to a government department like the new Department for Communities giving a grant to acommunity organisation to tackle some problem in their community.

“One of the things that concerns me and others is that there is noshortage of experts and companies selling ‘magic bullets’ which are basedaround saying: ‘We’ll tell youhow to measure outcomes.But you'll have to pay for myadvice and you’ll have to buy this particular piece of software.’

“That concerns us. Thereasons why we are involvedin the Inspiring Impact programme is that the resources and materials arefree for users. That doesn’tmean they don't have to invest in time and resources or perhaps that they need consultancy.

“We are concernedthat the Friedman approach is almostbranded and that othermodels may not be considered. The idea thatorganisations need ultimately to focus onwhat difference they aregoing to make is notradical. Loads of organisations andmethodologies havereached that conclusion.Friedman has just tightened it up andcodified it, put it in a book and provided manuals.

“If it is an OBA™

approach from government that's going to cascadedown through the whole public sector and its relationship with the community/voluntary sectorthen that will then be transmitted through grant

funding and contracts. One of the fears would beof a civil servant sitting behind a desk and tellingan organisation what its outcome is going to be.

Those things have to be negotiated.“Another concern we would have is that if

government start specifying the outcome they want,and it has a right to do that, then some people will

think then it is just a matter of buying those outcomes. And the way you buy outcomes is by

contracts rather than grants. That would re-move the need to grant fund

organisations. And that would befundamentally wrong.

“When we look at social impact, it's aboutultimately what positive differencedoes an organisationmake to people

and places.“Organisa-

tions, like Community Evalu-ation NI (CENI)have been to theforefront of looking at thequestion of socialimpact. Therehas always beenmoves and developmentsin NorthernIreland to saywhat is community development?

How do weknow it is making

a difference? “Back in 2011, our board

decided to take a longer and more strategic view of the concept of

impact measurement. We started to haveconversations with the Department ofSocial Development, NICVA and CENI.As part of our research we came acrossthe Inspiring Impact UK initiative. Theysaid that most organisations were look-ing for the 'silver bullet' which wouldtell them that they were doing a goodjob, whilst what they really needed doto was to step back and think aboutwhat is it that they are trying to do.”



Maeve Monaghan is justifiably proudof the success of social enterpriseLoaf catering. We sit in the

bustling Belfast City Hall cafe which giveswork opportunities to people with learning disabilities and is part of her organisation NOW, a limited company withcharitable status which has a head office in west Belfast and has been operatingsince 2001.

As Chief Executive she has been talking about outcomes for years and shesaid it is only now that “people are interested and engaged”. But she stressedthat “Outcomes-Based Accountability(OBA™) is not the only show in town”.

“A Social Value Act would help to ensure government departments workedtogether to ensure an outcomes framework was at the heart of public sector commissioning,” she added.

Political parties in Stormont signed up

to a draft motion to introduce new legislation in January but it has not yet been debated by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

A similar law has been in place inBritain since 2012 and a Social Return onInvestment outcomes model has been usedto measure impact.

“I say adopt OBA™ and then othermodels based on an outcome framework.We need a Social Value Act to impact oncommissioning,” she said.

“Social Return on Investment, SROI,the outcomes model used in England, isthe financialisation of the changes that hasbeen made by an investment; the difference and impact made to a person’slife, she said.

“We as a sector need to concentrateon what is needed for the organisation andservice users not what the governmentwants us to do.

“We need to focus on what makes adifference for our service users.

“The mission and vision of the organisation has to be on how it makes adifference,’ she added.

At its most extreme an outcomesmodel can result in Payment By Results.This is a outcome model Maeve Monaghanhas already worked with, as NOW hasbeen in a consortium which won a government contract to move people withdisabilities into employment.

NOW have recently joined privatecompany G4S in a successful tender for a contract with the civil service for cateringand cleaning.

She told VIEW magazine she will betaking part in the consultation on the draftProgramme of Government.

It looks as though she will have plentyto say to Stormont about outcomes andhow they are measured.

OBA ‘not the only show in town’Maeve Monaghan, Chief Executive of the social enterprise NOW, tellsVIEWdigital co-founder Una Murphy that she welcomes the fact thatpeople are now talking about oucome-based approaches

Maeve Monaghan: ‘We need to concentrate on what is needed for service users’



JUNE 2016

Embracing ChangePublic sector readiness for outcomes-based funding

A scoping study and discussion paper


www.viewdigital.org VIEW, Issue 38, 2016 www.viewdigital.org

Inspiring Impact is one of five strategicthemes that the Building Change Trusthas been supporting in Northern

Ireland in its work to support change anddevelopment within voluntary, communityand social enterprise (VCSE) organisations.

The focus of Inspiring Impact is tosupport development of impact practice, away of working that helps organisationsfocus on impact or the difference theirwork is making.

In 2015, as part of this work, five statutory funders completed demonstration projects to apply impactpractice to a funded programme. It wasrun by Inspiring Impact Northern Irelandthrough our strategic partner, CommunityEvaluation Northern Ireland, and the project evaluation reported positive outcomes and developments.

Although notable progress has beenachieved through the Addressing Bureaucracy project being led by the Department for Communities there remain specific strategic and operationalchallenges to introducing outcomes-based approaches.

These include:• The emphasis on accountability and

compliance; • The disruptive link between outcomesassessment and project monitoring;• The challenge of change in a sector withwell-established procedural and reportingframeworks;• The need for new skills in impact plan-ning, assessing and analysis.

While the Public sector has a criticalrole to play in improving practice, leader-ship across the VCSE sector is equally sig-nificant and there is an element of jointresponsibility for shifting the dial and tran-sitioning into new ways of working.

One year on and Northern Ireland ison the brink of its third Programme forGovernment which is framed in terms ofsocietal wellbeing and outcomes – throughtackling disadvantage, and driving eco-nomic growth.

It is clear that there is a commitmentto improving and transforming across thepublic sector but how is that translating topractice? How are departments preparingfor the effect of an outcomes-based ap-proach on programme design, funding de-cisions and governance?

What are voluntary and communityorganisations doing to adapt to potential

changes in funding and appraisal?Drawing on commissioned interviews,

a discussion event and a review of relevantliterature, this study finds that whilst thereis interest and commitment to adapt, thereis some confusion, concern and lack ofclarity about outcomes-based government,funding and accountability. Preparationsare at a very early stage and many playersare uncertain as to how best to embracethis new horizon.

While the nature of this scoping studywas limited and merely skims the surface,Inspiring Impact Northern Ireland presentthis short paper as a platform from whichto prompt discussion and informed debateabout how the current opportunities andchallenges can be addressed so that clarity,certainty and confidence can emerge.

Maurice Meehan, Director, Building ChangeTrustMargaret Henry, Director, Building ChangeTrust

• To read the full report go tohttp://bit.ly/1sGiF6P

Embracing Change, Public sector readiness for outcomes-based funding.A scoping study and discussion paper



As part of our look at social impact, above andoverleaf are a series of images of iconic buidings in Belfast which deliver lasting results for citizens and, hopefully, for future generations



Community hub: The SkainosCentre in east Belfast




Health, education and wellbeing: Clockwise, from above: The entrance to the Royal Belfast Hospital forSick Children; the archway at the front of Queen’s University in south Belfast; the gates leading into theFalls Park in west Belfast and the front of Botanic Gardens in the city

CHANGING LIVESVIEW, Issue 38, 2016 www.viewdigital.org


CHANGING LIVESwww.viewdigital.org VIEW, Issue 38, 2016 www.viewdigital.org



CHANGING LIVES

Arts and reading: TheLyric Theatre, southBelfast, above, andright, the front of Ballyhackamore Library in east Belfast



CHANGING LIVESwww.viewdigital.org VIEW, Issue 38, 2016 www.viewdigital.org



Tucked away in the Old Warren estatein Lisburn, lies the Lagan ViewEnterprise Park, home to the

Resurgam Trust. I am struck by the warmgreeting and total lack of pretention of myhosts, Denis Paisley, Resurgam Regeneration Manager, and Adrian Bird,Trust Director.

Adrian speaks passionately about theformation of the Resurgam DevelopmentTrust, their journey and their vision for thefuture. “The land was gifted to the community by the Housing Executive. Andwhere previously stood two high-riseblocks of flats, money was then ‘levered in’to build the Lagan View Enterprise Park.”

“The Old Warren estate was not classified as a mainstream renewal area. Butit was a community coming out of conflict.Money came in from the European PeaceFund One, Two and Three. We utilisedthese peace opportunities.” But in2008/2009, the community found itself at acrossroads. “After 30 years of conflict and10-15 years of transformation, a lot ofwork had been done. We asked ourselves:‘Where do we go from here?’”

The answer took them to Scotland tostudy their development trusts. There, themodel was different to the business approach to community development andcommunity regeneration organisations

here in Northern Ireland.“We conducted a consultation

internally among all the community groupsand asked them: ‘What is it that you want?’Adrian continues. “We then carried out anindependent external consultation amongstatutory bodies including the PublicHealth Agency (PHA), Police ServiceNorthern Ireland (PSNI) and the NorthernIreland Housing Executive (NIHE). Again,we asked: ‘What is that you want?’ Becausethere is no point in us creating somethingnew if it doesn’t fit with what the statutoryorganisations and the community organisations want.”

And so the consultations gave birth tothe Resurgam Development Trust in 2011.Resurgam Trust is community-led and community-owned, serving a population of10, 000 in the Lisburn North and LisburnSouth districts. It is comprised of 1,000 individual members (membership costs just£1 per year); 26 member groups/projects;six social enterprises (whose annualturnover is £1 million); 100 plus employees; and 500 plus volunteers – all ofwhich contributes more than £2 millionannually to the local economy.

However, Adrian said: “It is not aboutempire-building. We have been accused ofthat. We are delivering in relation to community need.

“Our vision is to achieve core sustainability by 2020.”

Which brings us to the crucial point:social impact and how to measure it.Adrian said: “I get very frustrated with this.I think the big challenge for us going forward in measuring community impact istrying to adopt a system that is holistic.”

Both Adrian and Denis feel that theircommunity development model is unique,as it adopts a ‘from the cradle to the grave’mantra, to boost quality of life and collective self-esteem of the peopleResurgam serves. Due to its success, theorgaanisation has conducted 60 site visitsand 20 host visits to showcase their workto other community organisations.

The best demonstration of this is the2011 Best for Every Child Report commissioned by Resurgam which lookedat educational underachievement in thearea. It spawned the Early Intervention Initiative, advocating parental involvementin the child’s education from birth.

It is impossible in this short spaceto sum up the sterling work of theResurgam Trust.

Regarding social impact measurement,Charles Dickens’s words sum it up best: ‘Asfrom the cradle to the grave, it is but a succession of changes so gentle and easy thatwe can scarcely mark their progress.’

Forging aTrust outof theneedsof thecommunitySiobhán Rogan talks to twoof the key players in theResurgam Trust about the social impact of their organisation


Passionate: Trust Director Adrian Bird and Denis Paisley,Resurgam Regeneration Manager


The Northern Ireland Local Government Association (NILGA) isthe representative body for the 11

councils in NI. It promotes, develops and champions local government by developingregional (all council) approaches to key issues affecting the sector, including electedmember development, collective lobbying,policy formulation, best practice events andcampaigns to improve democracy and public services.

Councils in Northern Ireland havecompleted their biggest shake up since1973. Twenty six local government regionswere wound up, and 11 new ones formed,in April 2015.

That in itself is institutional change,not social impact. There is too much government in NI, and too little social impact in terms of what many people want – inclusive, connected, participative, local democracy.

As the councils’ representative body,NILGA is like a David amongst the Goliaths of institutions. It rewrote theLocal Government Bill to ensure thatcouncils and government more widelywould be challenged to create social impact, principally by:• Developing Community Plans from2016/17 which demonstrably involvesstreet and town land level involvement oflocal residents in the design, delivery andmonitoring of them• Ensuring that government and its agencies are materially influenced by local need in terms of budget and policy decisions• Reforming the Planning system, ensuringformal community involvement

Beyond those things, well illustratedby the “Big Conversations” right acrossBelfast on investment in public servicesand the community level “bottom up”council development work in Newry,Mourne and Down, there are of courseother social impacts.

If you employ 12,000 local people andspend £1 billion per annum in the commu-nity, you’re enabling community cohesion,driving local economies and sustaining theenvironment, whether it’s shared spaceprovision in Coleraine or coastal adaptation work in Ballyhalbert.

Ultimately, NILGA wants social impactwhich sees councils as strengthening local

democracy, as the hub of local communities and acting as an axis between(top of the pyramid) central policy levelpoliticians and bureaucrats in Brussels,Westminster, Belfast and Dublin and (bottom of the pyramid) local people.

When you see council technical services staff delivering water and provisions to villages cut off by ice/snow,or people in a tourist office helping some-one with a rented housing problem, youknow that you’ve got 24/7 social impact byemployees and elected members who arenot ‘jobsworths’. Big and small tendersawarded (Derry City & Strabane) with social clauses to put community gain intoservices and construction contracts, the allyear, all weather, high tech Mid UlsterSports Arena, enabled by innovative localpeople, many funders and a tireless “cando” approach by the council, there is socialimpact certainly.

But we must put more of the localinto government to strengthen democracy.Social impact wise, our vision and campaigns (www.nilga.org) have nopoverty of ambition.

Ultimately, for councils to achieve thegoal of being place shapers, dynamic decision takers, drivers of local economies,prudent but comprehensive investorsacross the whole spectrum of public service provision and custodians of the environment, they need to be empowered,resourced and trusted.

So we will go, like fifth columnists, intothe new Programme for Government andlocalise it for social impact.

We will take the best and ditch theworst of social impact experiences fromneighbouring jurisdictions, and farawayplaces like the City of Lowell (nearBoston), Massachusetts which turned industrial and social wreckage into a greatplace to live, work and visithttp://www.lowellma.gov/.

We will underpin strategies and policies with compelling work on wellbeing, as espoused by the CarnegieTrust, champion local people and places inthings like Ulster in Bloom, and keep employing and buying in a way which sustains communities.

New councils, just over one year on,in terms of social impact, we are at chapter one of a great new book.

COMMENT

‘A David amongst Goliaths’Derek McCallan, Chief Executive of the NorthernIreland Local Government Association, arguesthat we need to put more of the local into Government to strengthen our democracy

‘’There is too much government inNorthern Ireland and toolittle social impact in termsof what many people want




It will have a huge detrimental affect onthe whole community if the field is lost.This is a very settled, densely populated

area. People rely on the value of the greenspace they have. People need to havespace. They want an area were they canrelax and chill out and to take time out toenjoy the panoramic view that theypresently have.

Every night this week I have been outon the field with my young children, whoare aged five and three. They love to runabout and have the freedom to play whichthe field offers. Childen need that. The social interaction which this green spaceoffers is really important. People who feelisolated can take their dog out for a walk,meet somebody on the field and strike upa conversation.

That will all be lost if a 3g sports pitchis built. The influx of cars from people whowill be coming to use the facility will have ahuge impact on an area which is peaceful

and quiet at the moment. We will havenoise and lighting problems.

Recently I spotted geese on the field. Iwas going to work at 7.30am and I stoppedto watch them. My children saw them also.

You can't put a price on that experience.One eldely resident in her 90s is confinedto bed. But I know that she loves to lookout her window and gaze at the field. Shecan observe life going on and enjoyingwatching the children playing.

There are very few green spaces leftin west Belfast. We have a pay to playagenda which conflicts with the draft Programme for Government which highlights the need for high quality greenopen spaces.

We need to protect this space for future generations. My parents have lived inthis area for many years. They appreciatedthe value of this green space. And I want topass this on to my children.

We have high levels of chronic illnessin west Belfast. We should be encouragingpeople to get out and get active.

To deprive people of green, openareas and to ask them to pay to access it is wrong.

Field of dreamsSpokeswoman Aithne Kerrigan tells VIEWdigital why residents mounted a battle to try and save a field in westBelfast and the negative social impact that will be causedto the surrounding area if it is lost for future generations

Residents Aithne Kerrigan and Martin Derby in the field at Glassmullin in west Belfast

‘’My children sawgeese in the fieldrecently. You can’tput a price onthat experience



Advice centres are a place of hopeand resolution for many people, especially when they are trying to

sort out welfare entitlements in the tangled web of state bureaucracy.

Mary McManus is the director of the East Belfast Independent AdviceCentre (EBIAC).

It’s situated on Templemore Avenue –an area which has experienced widespreadeconomic deprivation as austerity measures have taken hold.

Mary said: “EBIAC has been here since2000. Before we were formed it was feltthat there was not enough advice provision in east Belfast.

“We are an independent advice centreand a charity. We see ourselves very muchas a grassroots organisation.

“We provide a very accessible serviceto the public and offer advice on a range ofissues, including welfare benefits, housing,employment and debt. Most of our work isbenefit related because of the area inwhich we are based.

“We provide drop-in and immediateservices to the community. We find thatthey need advice very quickly. If peoplecome in with a benefit-related problen, wewill look at their paperwork and thenphone the benefit agency and find outwhat has happened. We negotiate on behalfof the client and try to ensure that when

they leave here we have found out whatthe problem was.

“At the advice centre we measure ourbenefit maximisation. That means that welook at the amount of money that we helppeople to gain in statutory social securityentitlements. Most of our work is aroundEmployment Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance.

“Our workload has grown and thecomplexity of the cases has increased.”

VIEW asked Mary what did she knowabout an outcomes-dased model beingadopted by Stormont in its Programme. “I have been to an informationsession about it,” said Mary. “I have also noticed that the Assembly says it is aframework and it is going out for consultation. After that there will be targets and measurements.

“From my little understanding of themodel, it is supposed to be shaped by thepeople. And if something is notworking, then people shape it to something that is working. This soundsgood on paper but I don't know how it willactually work.

“Our organisation does not knowenough yet about the model. The wholeprocess seems to be happening veryquickly. I would want to ask a lot morequestions about it though.”

Mary was asked to outline the type of

social impact that EBIAC feels it is making.“We provide our services using paid

staff and volunteers. We offer our volunteers full training in advice workwhich includes a combination of accredita-tion and work experience.

“Our volunteers have a high successrate in gaining employment. From 2010 to2016, 16 of our volunteers moved intopaid employment. We use a range of internal and external approaches to evaluate our services and volunteer programme. In 2013 an independent, external qualitative evaluation of our service found that: ‘EBIAC is having a clearpositive impact in terms of addressing; • Mental health deterioration among themost vulnerable• Breakdown and disintegration of families • Long term economic inactivity• Community Disconnection.

“EBIAC is on the frontline of dealingwith the impact of austerity on people, saidMary. “It is to us and other advice centresthat people who are at their wits end turnto for help. Despite the need of a centrelike EBIAC we have to continuously seekfunding to provide our services.

“Advice centres make a real differencein people’s lives because we provide realsocial and economic impact. Is it not timethat we were properly resourced to get onwith providing our services.”


‘Advice centres make a real differencein people’s lives because we providereal social and economic impact’

Committed: Mary McManus outside the offices of the East Belfast Independent Advice Centre on Templemore Avenue in east Belfast




Kerry Anthony, head of Depaul Ireland, looks remarkably relaxedwhen she arrives for our meeting in

a Belfast cafe. Declining my offer of a coffee, she opts instead for a bottle ofsparking water.

The conversation flows for the nexthour as we chat on a warm, balmy afternoon about social impact, measurement tools and does her organisation make a difference.

“Depaul Ireland is an organisationwhich helps people who are homeless orare at risk of being homeless. Our strategicplan would be to move people out ofhomelessness. This is a very clear outcomefor us and it is what we strive to achieve,”says Kerry.

“Homelessness in my opinion is abouthousing, but there are other aspects tothat as well. First and foremost, we need toput people into a home and then put supports in place. Organisationally ourwork falls into four areas; prevention, supporting vulnerable families, addictionand criminal justice.

“For example if I take addiction andyou look at our project here in Stella Marishostel in Belfast. When we first startingworking in the hostel we talked aboutharm reduction. But nobody really understood what that meant. At that timewe thought it meant getting people indoors and feeding them and keeping

them safe. And then we started to ask ourselves the question what does harm reduction actually mean? So we started tolook at the issue of alcohol and how couldwe prove we were making an impact onthe lives of people who were homelessand had an alcohol addiction.

“So we developed our own alcoholmanagement standards in the organisation.So each person who is in Stella Maris nowhas an alcohol management plan. I can nowsay that 100 per cent of those clients havenow reduced there alcohol consumption insome way, shape or form.

“Each person is different and the im-pact it has had for them is different. It hasincreased health and wellbeing, It has in-creased family involvement which had declined for many years.

“Each project we have is different andthe outcomes that we seek.”

I asked Kerry how does her organisation measure the success of theseprojects. “We are in probally about midwaythrough in understanding our social returnon investment.

“For example, in our project in Derry– a day centre for street drinkers – we gotmoney from the Big Lottery. We did abaseline piece of work over three yearsinvolving 50 service users. We looked atwhat interventions we were making andthe cost benefits of it in relation to themisuse of the accident and emergency

services and the criminal justice system.

“One of the big things we look at ishow are we making a difference and howare we saving money elsewhere?

“Research shows that our type ofprojects do save money in the use of accident and emergency services and thecriminal justice system.”

“We need to get better though atdefining what are the benefits for the community in terms of the work we do.”

“The largest part of the money we receive in Northern Ireland comesthrough the Housing Executive. It seemslikely that our primary funder will stillcome through the new Department ofCommunities and the Housing Executive.

As our conversatiion drew to an end, Iasked Kerry would her organisation betaking part in the consultation processaround the Programme for Government.

“Yes, we will be taking part in it,”replied Kerry and “feeding into the discussions around it and the outcomes-based accountability process”.

She went on to express her concernsabout welfare reform and the reduction ofbenefits in Northern Ireland.

“I keep to saying to my colleagues thatwe have no idea what the social impact ofwelfare reform is going to be. That is still acloud that is looming over us. My instinctsare to worry about it.”

VIEW talks to Kerry Anthony, above, the chief executiveof DePaul Ireland, about her organisation’s strategy to combat homelessness and what social impact is it making?


This exercise generated a substantial evidence baseon the impact of the RCDSS

and illustrated the critical role therural networks play in improvingthe lives of rural communities and in delivering rural policy objectives on tackling poverty andsocial isolation.

This is significant both for Department of Agriculture andRural Development (now DAERA)and the networks as they nowhave a robust evidence base todemonstrate the value of community development support,which can be used to help inform and shape future rural development policy and support programmes.

However, it hasn’t alwaysbeen like this. The outcomes ofcommunity development activityare notoriously difficult to defineand measure. DARD, concernedthat previous evaluations had notadequately captured these outcomes, appointed CENI in

2014 to carry out a social impactassessment of the RCDSS.

CENI went to work on applying its ‘Measuring Change’methodology which had been specifically designed to capture those ‘hard to measure’ qualitative changes of development activity.

The first phase of the evaluation evidenced how thenetworks were building community development infrastructure within rural areasby supporting groups, individualfarmers and community socialcapital. A second phase demonstrated the difference thatthis made to these communitiesin terms of enabling them to face challenges, attract resources, access public services and participate in newplanning structures.

The CENI evaluation identified the value that ruralsupport networks add by creatingstepped linkages between hard to

reach rural communities and pub-lic service providers – from firstcontact through to trust – whichimproved communication and fa-cilitated co-design.

“The CENI report has beenvery useful in demonstrating thepositive impact that the RCDSShas had in rural communities andwill inform the consideration ofany future support for local ruralcommunity development,” saidJohn Waddell, Rural DevelopmentSouth, Department of Agricultureand Rural Development

Nicholas McCrickard, Manager, County Down RuralCommunity Network, said:“CENI’s report provides an essential evaluation of the localrural support networks, highlighting the complex nature ofrural community developmentwhile capturing the myriad projects and talents that exist.We will use this to inform the development of community support for years to come.”

Supportingcommunitydevelopment, strengtheningour rural communities

Brendan McDonnell, director of CENI, talks about a pioneering approach to the evaluation of the Rural Community Development Support Service (RCDSS),which funds rural network organisations to deliver community development support in rural communitiesacross Northern Ireland over the period 2012-2016



www.viewdigital.org Page 29VIEW, Issue 38, 2016 www.viewdigital.org

Funded by the Big Lottery’s Live andLearn Programme, the six-year Healthin Mind project was rolled out across

the 96 libraries in Northern Ireland by theHealth in Mind Partners: AWARE; ActionMental Health (AMH); Cause; Mindwiseand Libraries NI. It reached 200, 000 people in both urban and rural settings.

Why did the community of NorthernIreland need the Health in Mind project? Inshort, approximately 150, 000 people inNorthern Ireland – between eight and 12 per cent of the population of this region – experience mental health difficulties. The most prevalent is depression. And it does not discriminate.Mental illness casts a very wide net.

In the last five years, there has been a500 per cent increase in the use of prescription drugs in the UK, standing at49 million prescriptions issued in 2015.

The World Health Organisation(WHO) has predicted that by 2030, mentalillness will be the world’s biggest burden,with depression being the leading cause ofdisability by 2020.

And with the legacy of the Troubles,Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder is alsoprevalent among the populace.

In 2006, a key recommendation of theBamford Review of mental health stated:“Mental health services should be located in ‘appropriate, child-friendly, non-stigmatising environments.”

To this end, “throughout the region,people were happy to come into local libraries, because libraries are viewed assafe, neutral and trusted environments.”(Professor Bernard Cullen, Chairperson ofLibraries NI. Health in Mind 2009-2016Final Report).

In 2002, an American woman, Mary

Ellen Copeland, who had experiencedlong-term enduring mental health problems, devised the Wellness and Recov-ery Action Plan (WRAP). WRAP is a preventative self-help tool and was justone of the many programmes rolled out byLibraries NI as part of the Health in Mindproject, reaching 210 people.

Other programmes delivered includedMindfulness (1,059 people); Nutritionworkshops (633 people); Laughter YogaWorkshops (418 people); Personal Development (1,261 people); Living Life tothe Full (331 people); and Music Therapy (249 people).

Some other impressive outputs delivered were:• 96, 090 people accessed up-to-date andrelevant information• 60, 777 people gained awareness of positive mental health and understanding

of mental health issues• 29, 489 people took part in activities• 13, 170 people acquired self-help skills,knowledge and information• 41 people enhanced their skills and confidence by volunteering.

However, these are quantitative measures. Benjamin Disraeli famously oncesaid: “There are lies, damned lies and thenthere are statistics.” So if the numbers donot speak for themselves, then the wordsof north Belfast woman Christine Roberts,who took part in AWARE’s Living Life tothe Full course, speaks volumes of the social impact of the project and the workof AWARE, a Northern Ireland charitywhich tackles depression and bipolar disorder.

Christine said: “I first discoveredAWARE in 2013. I passed their office onDuncairn Gardens every day for months,not having any confidence to go in. Oneday I just forced myself to go in and startedgetting the help I needed.

“I was made to feel so comfortableand welcome by everyone.

“From then, I have attended the support group every week for three years.It’s one of the best things I have ever done.AWARE have truly saved my life.

“Now I want to give back and helpand support others in need. I am now avolunteer Ambassador with AWARE tomake people aware of the work they do.”

• For further information, visit:www.aware-ni.orgwww.amh.orgwww.cause.orgwww.librariesni.orgwww.mindwisenv.orgwww.yourhealthinmind.org

Praise: Christine Roberts

Making adifferenceSiobhán Rogan looks at theHealth in Mind programmeand discovers some impressive results in tackling mental health issues in Northern Ireland




Writer Harry Reid dips his pen into the strangelanguage of ‘results-based accountability’, ‘deliverables’ and ‘theory of change’ and askscan we get back to using words we understand

And now for another thing

If words are the clothes that ideas andthoughts are dressed in, then the enervating language around ‘measuring

social impact’ makes this a sartoriallywretched fellow indeed.

The unsightly bloated beer belly of ‘results based accountability’ is notconcealed under the ill-fitting trousersmade of something called ‘feedback loops’.An expensive, but ill fitting, T-shirt emblazoned with the legend ‘metrics’ acts as a clownish showcase for his gym generated bare upper arm ‘robust indicators’.

With the confidence born of knowinghe has a pass to every charity event, thisguy strides into the kitchen of the partyyou’re at, plonks down his plastic bag of‘deliverables’, then bends your ear about‘benchmarking’ before enquiring aboutyour ‘theory of change’.

Where, you may ask, has this thoughtthrottling language come from?

Interestingly, and somewhat ironically,this is a story of unintended outcomes.

The life cycle of both Health andSafety, and what has come to be known aspolitical correctness, are instructive whenpondering this question.

Each began with a legitimate andlaudable aim, but morphed into unrecognizable caricatures of themselves.

Similarly, a legitimate desire by fundersof not-for-profit activity to determine ifthe services, projects and initiatives theysupport are effective, has over time transmuted into a carnival of the incompressible.

In contrast, the best not-for-profit organisations of whatever size have alwayshad a clear sense of their purpose and ensured their activities were designed tofurther this.

They also sought evidence to establishboth what exactly those actions wereachieving, and how their efforts could beimproved to better meet the needs of the people they sought to serveand represent.

This approach enabled the experiences, perspectives and ideas oftheir constituency members to be collected and considered so that the organisation in question could constructively:-• Refine their existing activities accordinglyand develop new initiatives designed tobetter meet articulated and observedneed;• Report to funders on both the degree ofeffectiveness of current initiatives and therationale for requests for future funding; • Authoritatively contribute to broader associated policy development; and,• Communicate with any pertinent audience about the needs and circumstances of their constituency, and how their work was helping to meet these.

Of course many organisations didn’ttake this approach, either they are toobusy getting on with what they saw astheir job or too lazy or egocentric toquestion if their approach was effective orcould be improved.

It is clear that the former need to

understand that reflecting in an informedand considered way on what you are, orare not achieving, is a key part of your job,while the latter need woken up to theirresponsibilities to both their constituencies and funders.

Demonstrating that you’re effortshave tangible positive outcomes that constructively impact on people’s lives isnow justifiably a non negotiable requirement of statutory and independent funders if they are to invest inyour efforts.

What is not justifiable is the barbed-wire babble that has attached itself to the recommended ways of establishing impact.

Rather than championing any of thethousand plus ‘tools’ that have been developed to seemingly measure outcomes, funders would do better to foster the skills involved in the craft of storytelling amongst those they investtheir resources in.

This would result in the skilled collection, consideration and amplificationof the voices of the people designated as beneficiaries.

Human experience, rather than a datadriven interpretation of it, has always informed great stories.

Great stories, from ancient mythologyto contemporary films, novels and qualityjournalism, have always explored the dynamics of truths.

Truths designed to help us reflect andlearn, are always clothed in language wecan grasp and savour.

Can we stop the barbed-wire babble?


Perfectingthe MEDIAexperience

We can produce quality magazines and set updigital masterclasses. Contact Brian Pelan at [email protected] for a quote

view issue 38

Documents