www.bakertilly.co.uk

Jim Clifford OBEScientific and Technical Chair, GECES Sub-group Co-founder and Chair, IAAM Adoption (SE)E: j.clifford@bwbllp.comT: +44 (0) 7860 386081

@Clifford_Jim

Impact Evaluation by Social Enterprises:

Measuring the un-measurable ?For OECD Conference – Stockholm April 2014

2

Programme

1. What is social impact and how we measure it ?

2. The standardisation debate

3. The opportunities and the risks

3

What is social impact.......?Views from Maas and Liket “Do we know what we are talking about” at ARNOVA 2011

Four key elements :

•Value created as a consequence of someone’s activity (Emerson, Wachowicz & Chun, 2000)

•Value created is that experienced by beneficiaries and all others affected (Kolodinsky, Stewart, & Bullard, 2006)

•Impact is the sum of both positive and negative effects (Wainwright, 2002)

•It must be judged against a benchmark of what would have been the status without the activity (Clark, Rosenzweig, Long, & Olsen,

2004)

4

Definitions from the GECES report

Social Relating to individuals and communities, and the interaction between them; contrasted with economic and environmental.

Social Outcome Social effect (change), both long-term and short-term achieved for the target population as a result of the activity undertaken with a view to social change taking into account both positive and negative changes.

Social Impact The reflection of social outcomes as measurements, both long-term and short-term, adjusted for the effects achieved by others (alternative attribution), for effects that would have happened anyway (deadweight), for negative consequences (displacement), and for effects declining over time (drop-off).

http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/social_business/docs/expert-group/20131128-impact-measurement-subgroup_en.pdf

5

Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impacts

Where do outcomes fit ?...

Primary Secondary

6

Why measure ……?

Plan

Engage

Monitor and controlImprove

Report and learn

Internal

External

• For funders (commissioners) in

Government

• In emergent EU legislation

• For prioritisation decisions

• For delivery measures in contracts

• For effectiveness and its

improvement

• For philanthropists and grant-

makers

• In social finance/investment

• in competing for capital

•..and in public scrutiny

7

What is “good” measurement…..

For measurement to be effective it must be:

 • relevant: related to, and arise from the outcomes it is measuring;

• helpful: in meeting the needs of stakeholders’, both internal and external;

• simple: both in how the measurement is made, and in how it is presented;

• natural: arising from the normal flow of activity to outcome;

• certain: both in how it is derived, and in how it is presented;

• understood and accepted: by all relevant stakeholders;

• transparent and well-explained: so that the method by which the measurement is made, and how that relates to the services and outcomes concerned are clear;

• founded on evidence: so that it can be tested, validated, and form the grounds for continuous improvement.

8

Impact measurement: How does it work ?

Impact = Σ Outcomes – (deadweight + alternative attribution + displacement)

DeadweightThe outcome that would have happened anyway

Alternative attribution

The outcome that arose as a result of other interventions – importance of recognising the work of others

DisplacementThe disadvantage or reduction in positive outcome, or social cost arising as a consequence

What’s happening out there…..?• Developing the discussion and

the network at the “top table” – GECES sub-group is part of this

• Common frameworks, e.g.

• Outcomes matrix (BSC et al)

• CECOP (Fr) and others

• Inspiring Impact (npc)

• Good Investor Guide (BSC/Investing for

Good)

• EVPA “A Practical Guide to Impact

Measurement” (first draft)

• Social Reporting Standard (Germany)

• Drive from Investors and the changing Social Investment Market,

• Conflicting political and cultural ideologies

• E3M Impact Measurement for Social Enterprise: Common threads and differences

• European Commission interest under the Social Business Initiative – GECES sub-group supporting:

• PSCI £90m grant fund

• EUSEFs

• Influence of public sector

• Influence of innovative Ses

• Emerging influence of the G8 group

Standardisation: help or hindrance

Help ?

• Comparability

• Benchmarking for improvement

• Supported investment decisions

• Engagement with outsiders using a common language

• Support idea-sharing

Hindrance ?

• “one size fits all”

• Lose the story and devalue it

• Supporting false comparability

• Develop a two-tier landscape

10

THINK…..Embracing something that’s workable and then developing it further avoids others introducing something less helpful………….

11

The search for standardisation…

12

The search for standardisation…

13

The search for standardisation…

14

The search for standardisation…

15

The search for standardisation…

16

The search for standardisation…

……..and then……risks and opportunities..

Timing• Actual measurement is needed and is

happening

• Standardisation is being sought as the market grows and needs it

• G8 group should develop its proposals guided by a clear European Statement

Choices:• Draw together common good SE-led practice

• Move to a single protocol: one size fits all

• Leave it to investors and others to determine the solution

GECES sub-group report

• Clear inclusive statement

• Drawing together existing knowledge and

diversity (10 States; 19 experts; 25+ others)

• Social Enterprise-driven

• Sensitive to European culture and diversity

• Embracing large and small

• Embracing a diversity of methodologies

• With flexibility for future growth and

intelligent development

• As a foundation……

17

18

And the key message of impact measurement……..?

Story-telling

..by social enterprises

…about their worlds

……in the ways that best suit those stories