Measuring Impact - Nicva
Measuring Impact - Nicva
Measuring Impact - Nicva
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
60 <strong>Measuring</strong> <strong>Impact</strong> – Case-studies of impact assessment<br />
What works:is there a hybrid of the different approaches 8.4<br />
The components of a successful impact assessment might constructively use a mix of the different<br />
approaches used in the case-studies. When combined with data collected for other reasons (e.g.<br />
monitoring and evaluation), they could work as ‘triangulation tools’ for a more grounded, realistic<br />
assessment of impact. A hybrid approach therefore might employ the following:<br />
• use of systems maps of stakeholders;<br />
• use of one-to-one interviews with randomly selected representatives from each<br />
stakeholder group, but particularly providers and beneficiaries;<br />
• use of existing approaches, many of which offer lists of indicators which can be used<br />
as they are or adapted;<br />
• use of focus groups to develop interview or questionnaire themes;<br />
• development of context-specific themes or dimensions of impact;<br />
• the development, in conjunction with stakeholders, of ways in which to represent<br />
impact in terms of a selection of these dimensions.<br />
It is clear that any hybrid approach needs more thought on how to capture longer-term and<br />
negative impacts. The former may simply be a question of resources and building impact<br />
assessment into organisational planning; capturing negative impact may be a reflection of the<br />
skills and abilities of the interviewer.<br />
Moving forward:what still needs to be done and why 8.5<br />
Our recommendations for future work centre around two broad issues: mapping types of impact<br />
to particular voluntary sector functions or sub-sectors, and further development of contextspecific<br />
tools for impact assessment.<br />
Further investigation still needs to be undertaken to produce what ultimately might be a typology<br />
of impacts. This would build on Table 8.1, with each cell populated by function-specific casestudies.<br />
Interestingly, there may be another, sub-sectoral dimension. By being able to map types of<br />
impact to voluntary and community sector functions, organisations might then have a much<br />
better starting point than we had when thinking about the impact of their specific organisation.<br />
In order to complete the case-studies for this table, work needs to be undertaken to refine and<br />
test the hybrid approach loosely outlined above. This would include the development of specific<br />
tools for non-researchers, including sample interview schedules and generic stakeholder maps.<br />
Our limited resources mean that the approach would of course need to be tested in a much wider<br />
range of environments. Finally, we recognise that much more work needs to be done with regard<br />
to the presentation of findings: it remains the case that policy change is easier to implement when<br />
the evidence base is predominantly quantitative.<br />
The beginning of this report argued that impact assessment need not be complex or expensive.<br />
We believe we have gone some way to demonstrate the former, although the question of<br />
resources still has to be fully addressed. The development of a more comprehensive ‘how to’<br />
guide will go some way to addressing this, and will therefore be the focus of our future work in<br />
this area. In the meantime, we welcome the feedback and comments of those who are also<br />
working in this area.