Measuring Impact - Nicva
Measuring Impact - Nicva
Measuring Impact - Nicva
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Impact</strong> assessment involving users 43<br />
6.3.1 The influence of stakeholder type on perception of impact<br />
There were some differences in the way each stakeholder (service providers, service users and<br />
front-line staff) identified the impact of organisations.<br />
Service users were clearest on how the organisation made a difference to their personal<br />
circumstances. They had a limited awareness of the alternative options (such as local<br />
authority social services), but were clear that different organisations offered different services.<br />
Some users expressed an interest in the way in which the organisations might help with the<br />
development of their community. The organisation was then presented as the vehicle by<br />
which they could make a difference at the community level.<br />
Front-line staff had built their own perception of the differences made by both their own and<br />
other organisations. It predominantly focused on the community level of needs and concerns.<br />
They had a very clear and coherent view of the community needs met and not met by the services<br />
accessible to service users. This appeared to be their primary way of seeing impact, within<br />
which they fitted the personal circumstances of clients. However, they also had their own<br />
personal network of front-line contacts in other organisations, to which they would refer<br />
clients. Their perception of the organisational context within which they worked was based on<br />
this informal network of contacts. It follows that their broader view of impact at the level of<br />
the community, combined with their own contact network with other front-line staff, influenced<br />
the way in which they used the activities and resources of the organisations to engage<br />
service users. For example, they might use the resources in other ways to their original<br />
purpose, such as using training courses to “get the service users away for a while”, or using the<br />
employment counselling sessions to “help service users get over their resentment at their situation”.<br />
This is a particularly important learning point for the delivery of public services, as it<br />
suggests that organisations with the necessary flexibility and devolved decision making have a<br />
greater potential to achieve impact at the local level, where services are ultimately delivered.<br />
By contrast, project co-ordinators focused on sustaining their organisations, and ensuring the<br />
uniqueness of their organisation’s services. They were likely to think about how they could<br />
grow, develop and sustain their organisation, and how they engage funders. Their internal<br />
map appeared to be based on the organisation’s key partnerships with public sector and other<br />
voluntary sector agencies. Consequently, their view of impact was based around the contribution<br />
of (and impact on) their organisation in relation to other key partnerships and agencies.<br />
6.3.2 The relevance of gender and ethnicity on perception of impact<br />
Service users are a heterogeneous group, with gender and ethnicity being key lines of division.<br />
This needs to be taken into account when planning any kind of impact assessment.<br />
Perceptions of impact among service users and front-line staff seemed to vary depending on<br />
gender and cultural background. Voluntary organisations were perceived by minorities to be<br />
particularly helpful, as they were more able to relate to users’ cultural needs and values. This<br />
was particularly the case where previous users or community members had been recruited<br />
into the organisation.