avpn impact assessment- making evidence work
DESCRIPTION
A dialogue about impact investment inevitably gravitates to the argument that what can’t be measured can’t be managed. It is this thinking that has brought rigour and scientific modelling into the field of social impact assessment. Evidence sought by funders to demonstrate accountability by investees are often required to be empirical, and SPO looking for data to improve their programmes seek objective statistics for benchmarking and comparison.This session challenges participants to think about impact evidence in a different way – positing that a better understanding of the reason we seek evidence, and aligning these reasons between funder and SPO, will lead to effective use of impact evidence. It will also open new possibilities of non-traditional impact evidence that are qualitative, emotive and sometimes personal. Participants will hear perspectives on how funders and SPOs that work in hard-to-measure issues find new ways to align the impact evidence dialogue with their stakeholders, so that the impact evidence sought will be relevant, contextual, and works for their objectives.TRANSCRIPT
-
[T]oo many social entrepreneurs and impact fund managers view metrics and performance tracking as something we do for funders rather than something we need do for ourselves to ensure our work is actually creating the impact we seek rather than the outcomes we claim.
- Markets For Good
Jed EmersonSenior Advisor, Gary Community Investment Company, Blue Haven InitiativeSenior Strategic Advisor, RS GroupChief Impact Strategist, ImpactAssets
-
Caroline FiennesDirector for Giving Evidence, published author, and columnist for Third Sector UK
Presenting assessments of a charity's performance doesn't necessarily increase donations
Study 1: The mention or omission of scientific rigour had no effect at all on whether someone donated. It also had only a tiny effect on the total amount raised.
Study 2: Half the donors were shown the (charity) rating; the other half weren't. The presence of the ratings made no meaningful difference to their responses.
Study 3: Donors appeared to use evidence of effectiveness as they would a hygiene factor: they seemed to expect all charities to have (high) ratings (of effectiveness), and reduced donations when they were disappointed but never increased them because they were never positively surprised.
-
AV P N , S I N G A P O R E A P R I L 2 2 n d 2 0 1 5
N I C O L A C R O S T A E X E C U T I V E V I C E P R E S I D E N T
N I C O L A @ E P I C . F O U N D A T I O N I T w i t t e r : @ n i c o _ c r o s
-
IMPACT
=
CHANGE
-
Supply
of philanthropic capital
Demand
for philanthropic capital
Big market failure: why?
-
We have asked 1,000+ organizations and donors from 83 Countries
-
NGOs: What do you need to achieve impact?
82%: Smarter, more engaged donors.
Donors: What do you need to donate more/better?
90+%: More data, opportunities to engage.
-
A clear disconnect, need for new tools to bridge it
Donors NGOs
Engagement
Impact
Access
Experience
Monitor
Select
-
2. MONITORING
Individual Philanthropists
Family Offices
Family Foundations
Corporate Foundations
CSR Departments
National Agencies
International Agencies
Online Giving Platforms
Wealth Managers
Evaluation Consultants
Travel Agencies
Volunteer Programs
Consultants
Strategic Philanthropy
Consultants
Strategic Philanthropy
Fragmented market = obstacle for donors looking for impact
1. SELECTION
3. EXPERIENCE
RESEARCH
DONORS
-
Epic Toolkit
SELECTOutstanding NGOs &
Social Enterprises
MONITORProgress on Social
objectives
EXPERIENCEthe journey towards
Impact
Highly integrated tools, deliberate focus on technology
All this leads to rigorous, yet actionable research
-
C H A N G E T O M O R R O W T O D AY
N I C O L A C R O S T A E X E C U T I V E V I C E P R E S I D E N T
N I C O L A @ E P I C . F O U N D A T I O N