Measuring Impact - Nicva

8 Measuring Impact – Case-studies of impact assessment
Figure 1.1 – Measurement points in the resource cycle
The drive to assess impact reflects similar moves in the private and public sectors. The
common factors have been continuous improvement and the drive for a more effective allocation
of resources. In the for-profit world, impact assessment was a relatively straightforward
exercise, with a single indicator: profit. However, the bottom-line profit statement is no
longer accepted without question, and for publicly-listed companies, share price is an additional
indicator. The many intangible factors affecting share price (such as reputation) have
led to broader measures of impact, such as environmental audits.
At the same time, government has moved away from measuring resource inputs and outputs
(measures of efficiency) and towards outcomes and impact (measures of effectiveness). Aware
that an increasingly consumerist public will no longer tolerate poor quality or poor value
public services, attempts have been made to modernise service delivery. The problem,
however, is that effectiveness (unlike efficiency) is a social construct.
This move towards impact assessment has had its problems, and the performance indicator
culture in central and local government has been criticised for its lack of proportion in relation
to the activities under review. There is a danger that organisations may become so keen
to meet targets that they loose sight of their original goals. Recent improvements to the measures
used have recognised the importance of ‘distance travelled’. This might include, for
example, school performance results weighted to reflect pupils’ educational attainment on
entering a school.
Impact assessment and the voluntary sector 1.3
Some of these difficulties and aspirations are shared by voluntary and community organisations.
It could be argued however, that they face additional pressures due to their position
within a web of stakeholder interests. Furthermore, reliance upon voluntarism (the gift of
time or money) places a greater emphasis on the maintenance of public trust and confidence:
values that are easily damaged by poor or inaccurate reporting of achievements.
One of the key issues to arise has been the question of whether impact should or can be measured
or demonstrated. While the answer to this question will depend on the circumstances, it
partly reflects the non-alignment of different stakeholders. Impact measurement – with its
quantitative connotations – tends to be more externally, top-down driven. Impact measurement
undoubtedly gives an accurate report of quantifiable achievements, but one could argue
that it is less helpful in identifying soft outcomes and unanticipated impact.