Measuring the impact and return of social and community programs

Evidence of Impact and Return
Reana Rossouw
Next Generation Consultants

Who we are:
• Next Generation Consultants helps organisations across the African
continent to become more sustainable and have greater positive
impact on the economy, society and the environment.
• In the investment and development sectors - we provide consulting
and advisory; research and engagement; training and facilitation;
impact assessment and due diligence services.
• We have developed the Impact Investment Index™ - a methodology
that measures the impact and return on investment of social /
community and enterprise development investments.
2016/05/17 Next Generation Consultants 2

What we do:
• Our Context
• We have developed the Impact Investment Index (III)™ in 2009.
• Since then we have assessed more than R3 billion worth of social/community
and enterprise development investments. This includes more than 600
programs across 15 focus areas/investment portfolio’s.
• We have conducted these impact assessments on behalf of Multinational
Funders, Corporate Donors and the Development Sector – within the mining,
retail, manufacturing, government, media, communications and financial
sectors.
• Our work resulted in an indicator library with more than 5 000 qualitative and
quantitative indicators. We have also identified 21 dimensions of impact and
more than 15 dimensions of return.

What we wanted to achieve:
• To provide evidence
• To demonstrate performance
• To prove accountability
• To show program/ investment effectiveness
• To demonstrate value
• To contribute to sustainable development
• To empower and capacitate communities
and funders
• Ultimately - to alleviate, eliminate and
eradicate poverty
• Develop a solution for the continent – from
the continent – reflecting the context,
complexity, interconnectedness of systems
and ensure capacity building across the
industry

Guiding Principles of our work:
• Impact means impact
• The goal is to understand what changes as a result of investment from donors in communities
as beneficiaries and recipients of interventions
• The impact is shared
• The goal is to understand who is impacted along the value chain – including donors,
intermediaries and beneficiaries
• Impact includes and involve all stakeholders
• Analysis must be comprehensive. Instead of cherry picking something that’s working and
leaving out what is not, the analysis should include all aspects of impact and those impacted
• Results must be transparent
• Companies should report to their investors, and investors should aggregate and report results.
What is left out should be stated. Assumptions and sources should be stated. It should be
possible for a third party to replicate the analysis based on the documentation of it and get
the same result.
• Context matters
• It is harder to create a stable job in a rural area than in a city. The qualitative and quantitative
context should be provided to inform the impact as well as an understanding of how much
of the problem may exist or remain.

How the model works:
HowWhatWhoImpact
Community
Impact
Teachers
Improved
capacity
Improved
morale
Short term
Learners
Improved
pass rates
Social
Schools
Improved
enrolment
Empowered
Government
Leverage of
resources
Cost Savings

Aspects of Impact
A variation of the standard Impact Value Chain

Different perspective of the impact value chain:
ImpactDimension
Economic/Social/Socio-
Economic/Environmental
Direct/Indirect
Positive/Negative/
Combined
Intended/Unintended
Short/Medium/Long Term
Perceived/Empowered/
Pre-emptive & post
impact
Significant/Residual/
Capital impact
ImpactPortfolio
Education & Bursaries
Health and quality of life
Environment and climate
change
Safety & Security
Welfare & Community
Agriculture and Food
Security
Economic, Enterprise and
Social Development
Skills Development and
Job Creation
Sports Development and
Recreation
Infrastructure and local
economic development
ScopeofImpact
Project/Program
Focus Area and
investment portfolio
Signature, cause related
and Flagship
Geographic (region –
local/national)
Demographic (girls/ boys/
women/disabled)
Stakeholder based (value
chain – intermediaries,
learners, teachers,
government departments,
other funders, etc.)
Company –
funder/investor
Boundaryofimpact
Stakeholders
(direct/indirect)
Funders
(primary/secondary)
Partners (intermediaries)
Time (1/3/5 year)
Depth / weighted (related
to strategic
objectives/outcomes)
Reach (primary/
secondary/ tertiary -
value chain)

Determining Impact
Impact Value Chain – Categories of Impact

Impact across the triple bottom line:
Economic Impact
Without economic impact – hardly
any social program can be
proclaimed sustainable.
Example:
Job Creation/Income Generation/
savings & leverage of funds/
enterprise development and
empowerment
Most programs have a ‘job
creation’ aspect to it – without
measuring the value/income of the
jobs created –and the impact
thereof most programs will remain
unsustainable.
Environmental Impact
Only specific environmental
programs measures environmental
impact – which clearly indicates the
nature/extend of unsustainable
development.
Example:
Most programs consumes water,
energy, emit carbons – therefore
not understanding or not
measuring environmental
impact(soil erosion, water, energy
consumption) – renders most
programs unsustainable/
unbalanced.
Social Impact
It is ironic that at its core
CSI/SED/ED focuses on social
development – therefore not being
able to measure social impact
indicates a lack of strategy, lack of
knowledge/lack of indicators.
Example:
Most programs must have a
direct/intended outcome – to
change something – social impact
must measure this change i.e.
increased knowledge, behaviour
changes.
Please see: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/measuring-impact-social-community-investment-reana-rossouw

Impact over time:
Short Term
Short term impacts or “quick wins” are important
for projects as they build trust, credibility, and local
support. They also maximise the value to the
stakeholders very quickly. But when project lag and
expectations are not met, then impact is
diminished.
Example:
Food gardens/feeding schemes provide immediate
relieve to/for malnutrition, food access, food
security – but is not sustainable over the long term.
Additionally if resources for water or seeds or
access to markets are not factored in – food
gardens have a short life span.
Medium Term
There does not appear to be a longer term
approach for business partnerships or
opportunities beyond the initial funding phase.
Most programs require additional funding
specifically for capacity building in order to
ensure long term impact as well as sustainability
– a clear oversight in current program funding
cycles.
Example:
A science/maths program may yield increased
pass rates within 12 months, but may not affect
increased university access, or subject/career
choices.
In particular infrastructure programs require
additional resources i.e. operational expenses or
capacity building (maintenance) to move along
the value chain.
Long Term
Very few programs have access to long term
funding, therefore measuring long term impact
becomes impossible. 80% of all programs are only
funded between 12 and 24 months, 15% of
programs are funded up to 36 months, but less than
5% of all programs are funded for 60 months (5
years) meaning that impact of each and every
program is diminished over time.
Example:
An ECD program may yield results in the form of
increased school enrolment but evidence needs to
be provided of improved literacy and numeracy
skills or school readiness to ensure long term
sustainability – if not followed by a program in
primary education – as such it will be unsustainable

Types of impact:
Positive
Positive impact is seen as additional to
direct/intended impact. It is therefore
surprising that so few proposals and
subsequent programs consider
‘additional’ impact and this indicates the
limited focus of particular interventions
- i.e. it is only designed to achieve one
specific outcome.
Example:
A food garden may yield additional
positive impacts such as improved
concentration/ ability, increased school
attendance, increased
motivation/positive behaviour, decrease
in absenteeism, increased subject
knowledge – but in general these types
of programs only measures the number
of people affected by the garden.
Negative
We present two models to clients – one
where negative is measured as part of
the total impact scenario – and one
where we subtract the negative impact
from total impact.
We found that negative impact plays out
on two levels 1) as a result of actions
from the funder i.e. delayed payments
and 2) as a direct/ indirect/ unintended
consequence of the program – i.e.
highlighting oversight within program
design aspects.
Example:
Providing a computer lab/Building a
soccer field, but not considering security,
where the water will come from or
materials for maintenance or increased
costs for electricity/software programs
generally leads to negative impact.
Combined / Cumulative
This impact aspect reflects an
opportunity to expand impact and in our
experience is mostly linked to program
implementation and design aspects.
Example:
A food garden not only increases food
security, but improved nutrition which is
linked to increased productivity or
quality of life or improved school
attendance.
Aggregation and/or interaction of
impacts within a system are defined
from the perspective of the stakeholders
experiencing them and should therefore
be considered and accounted for.

Types of impact:
Direct
These are impacts that can be directly
attributed to the implementation and therefore
outputs and outcomes of a program.
Example:
The objective was to increase
literacy/numeracy/subject knowledge or
technical skills.
If the strategic objective is met and evidence is
provided then there is direct or impact – i.e.
stakeholders were tested and based on the
results pass rates increased.
Indirect
Indirect impact is very often linked to unclear
focus areas, unclear development outcomes,
unclear accountability/ responsibility, lack of
research, lack of engagement, lack of impact
which renders the programs of little value for
any stakeholder groups or that resulted in
‘accidental’ impact.
Example:
The fact that classes are presented on Saturdays
requires additional resources, food, transport,
security, staff and other additional costs, for
both the funder and intermediary sides –
therefore attendance of classes can drop and
dropout rates are high – which leads to indirect
impact which is negative or unconsidered
impact.

Types of impact:
Intended
This aspect refers to the intended (direct)
(stated/strategic objectives/outcomes) of a specific
intervention. The lack of indicators to measure direct
and intended impact is a serious issue, which could
mean, that there was no shared value distributed. If
there is little evidence of impact it is an indication
that the programs funded were bad choices, or the
objectives and desired/intended outcomes were not
clearly defined.
Example:
To improve the pass rates in maths (intended
outcome) but without specifying the minimum pass
rate (80% of pupils must achieve a minimum of 70%
and 60% must continue with the subject choice for
the next grade – or no more than 10% drop out rate
during a 3 year cycle) should confirm the intended
impact objectives.
Unintended
No community program is intended or
designed/implemented to have unintended impacts
as this would mean that not enough planning or
research or engagement has been conducted. This
implies that there is disconnect between
strategy/objectives, project management and
execution.
Example:
Whilst providing a food garden – the garden yielded
little or no production because of drought/lack of
water/knowledge/skills. This program then requires
additional resources as unintended impact
diminishes the intended impact.

Types of impact:
Perceived Impact
A potential/perceived impact rather
than an actual impact. This is about
how people (stakeholders) feel about
the impact and how they behave
generally, thus perception is a reality to
them.
Example:
Specifically used if impact is an anomaly
– only mentioned once by a particular
stakeholder group, or evidenced by few
stakeholders or cannot be confirmed by
other stakeholders. Because of
increased skills/knowledge, salaries
increased which improved the living
conditions of a family and increased
family sustainability.
Empower(ed) Impact
Is the enhancement of the assets and
capabilities of individuals or groups to engage
and influence institutions, and to increase the
accountability of institutions.
Example:
• Capacity building for stakeholder
organisations/groups – now access social
security services
• Strengthening legal status of stakeholder
groups/organisations – now increased
fundraising/marketing/attracting new
donors
• Stakeholder authority to manage funds,
hire and fire workers, supervise work and
procedure materials – increased
effectiveness of organisations
• Support for new and spontaneous
initiatives by stakeholders – now help
others to become more empowered
Pre/Post Impact
Depending on the lifecycle or life stage
of a project, pre-emptive assessments
can be made that will indicate post
impact assessment impact.
This focuses on likely impacts of a
planned intervention – i.e. has not
happened yet.
Example:
A program can be assessed to determine
likely/significant impact and develop
indicators to measure such impact in the
future.

Types of impact:
Significant Impact
Focuses on intended outcomes – i.e.
prioritisation of outcomes to be
considered.
Impacts are assessed for their
significance according to predetermined
criteria.
Example:
For instance – if job creation was the
intended/direct outcome – the
significance of the impact would refer
to: Direct/indirect/full-time/part-time
or even decent jobs created – not
temporary jobs or below living wage
categories.
Residual Impact
Impact that reflects negative impact and
will continue to contribute to negative
impact without mitigation/correction.
Example:
The intention was to create jobs, but
now there is the realisation that the
intervention requires substantial skills
development and then certification to
ensure a qualification before a job can
be secured. Therefore impact envisaged
was not achieved, rather residual impact
can be achieved through significant
changes.
Capitals Impact
Typically this could include:
Financial - (income, security, wealth, credit,
investment, savings)
Social (leadership, networks, relationships, trust,
reciprocity)
Environmental/natural capital – (landscape, soil,
land ownership, water, energy)
Human – (self-esteem, worthiness, social
cohesion)
Intellectual – (community ownership, community
assets, community contribution)
Manufactured / production – (products, services,
crafts, indigenous products)
Also considered are political impact, institutional
impact, infrastructure impact, cultural or spiritual
impact – (language, traditions, rituals).
Example:
Social cohesion improved (racial discrimination
decreased).2016/05/17 Next Generation Consultants 16

Return on investment
Learning from our experience

Business value of determining ROI:
Knowledge
Deep understanding of value and
impact as well as risks
Comparative data – industry/sector
Insights into and across impact
dimensions
Insights into stakeholder groups
affected
Action
New or enhanced business
decisions, practices and behaviours
Develop new
products/services/markets
Changed policies, strategies and
practices to increase impact and
return
Report in a more credible,
integrated and useful way
Results
Improved performance –
profitability/competitiveness
Reduce potential risks – community
activism/licencing
Cost Savings – of court
cases/mitigation of risks
Enhanced stakeholder relationships
Improved licence to operate
conditions
Improved trust and transparency
Please see: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/determining-roi-corporate-community-involvement-reana-rossouw

Return on investment impact:
Strategic Aspects
Support of corporate values and
strategies
Support of sustainability
strategy/programs
Support of future growth,
development and market access
Operational – improved processes,
systems, communication
Investor / Shareholder
Aspects
Share price not affected when
industry or sector are targeted by
activists
Rated as industry leader in
Sustainability Indices
Increased investment from socially
responsible investment funds
Inclusion and high ratings in awards
programs
Reputation Aspects
Recognition/awards
Media coverage
Increased brand awareness

ROI Impact:
Profit Aspects
Sales generated from programs/products
Value of new products and services
generated
Increased worker productivity
Increased share price (e.g. from attention
of socially-screened investment funds)
Increased sales/subscriptions/advertising
Environmental Aspects
Costs mitigated from rehabilitation
Costs saved from waste
management/recycling
Carbon emissions sequestrated
Costs of fines
Sector Specific Aspects
Financial Sector
Economic trends and demographics and expanding
workforce needs
Increasing regulatory activity (e.g. CRA, PRI, CRESA,
JSE, investment screening)
Increasing equality/disparity between haves/have-
nots – financial inclusivity/Gini Co-efficient
Globalization strategies
Opportunities to brand company through community
involvement
Mining
Intensity of opposition
Previous negative incidents
Regulators’ sensitivities
Compatibility with existing development
Reputation of company
Level of community involvement
Involvement of external advocates/activists

ROI Impact:
Stakeholder Aspects
Increased community/government
awareness/positive
relationships/stakeholder relations
Decreased complaints/grievances/
activism/strikes/boycotts/negative press
coverage
Cost savings/avoidance
Prevention of operational
stoppages/delays
Reducing/decreasing legal costs/law
suits
Support for market entry/expansion
plans
Savings Aspects
Tax rebates received from philanthropic/
charity/social/community contributions
Saved costs of free advertising space/
shelve space received from media
coverage of the CI/CSI programs
Legal fees averted (includes legal
department staff time and projected
billable hours from contracted firms)
Costs averted through supply chain/
customer contributions
Costs saved from overstock
Savings Aspects Continue
Crisis PR efforts averted (includes PR
staff time and projected billable hours
from contracted firms)
Costs of avoided down-time from failure
to receive building approval, work
stoppages, etc.
Reduced employee recruitment costs,
reduced employee turnover costs,
and/or reduced absenteeism
Reduced employee training costs (e.g.,
through community service learning
initiatives)
Reduced customer turnover
Other staff management hours saved

ROI Impact:
Customer Aspects
Surveys indicating improved customer
perceptions and impacts on shopping decisions
Sales leads generated in specific geographic or
demographic markets or previously closed
markets
Development/increased sales of specific
products/services in targeted geographic or
demographic markets
Annual brand tracking surveys indicating higher
scores/ratings
Collaboration/participation/co-design of new
product/service development
Greater participation/involvement/
contribution in community investment and
development programs
Increased brand awareness
Increased customer acquisition/retention
Operational Aspects
Mitigation of operational risks
(health/environment/safety)
Support and enhancement of business
operational requirements (integration,
skills development, etc.)
Enhanced processes and services,
communication, information, grievance
and complaints
Integration and alignment of divisions
Product/service testing
Research/local content/beneficiation,
supplier development
Compliance Aspects
Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment
Licence to operate – support/extension
SLP Mandate/Strategy / support/extension
DMR/King III/ICMM/IPIECA – Industry
requirements
Approval rates/new explorations/extensions
Rehabilitation/closure enhancement/support
Drop in complaints/grievances
Global Compliance and enhanced reporting

ROI Impact:
Employee Aspects
Positive response to utilizing volunteerism for professional
development/skills development and team building
Employee surveys demonstrating that volunteer activities contribute
to leadership and skills development
Voted one of the best companies to work for
Surveys showing increased employee morale from participation and
increased numbers of employee volunteers, volunteer hours, and
the number of company-sponsored volunteer projects
Employee training programs
Employees learning to use products to that they are more equipped
to sell/market them
CSI/CI projects used for team building or during
orientation/induction or other training
Recruitment from communities where CSI/CI projects are run
Internal surveys showing an increase in employee pride, morale and
commitment as a result of employee involvement in volunteer
activities
Social Aspects
Improvement of quality of life of workers
Community job creation / empowerment
Improved stakeholder relations within the community
Poverty reduction
Enhanced recruitment and appointment
Enhanced safety and security
Increased human rights awareness – mitigation of human rights
aspects

Case Studies
Learning from our experience

ED Supplier
Development
Program
Supplier capacity
building and access
to banking services
Local Suppliers
Improved business
skills and
profitability
Greater output and
productivity
The economic value of increased
revenue and reduced costs. The
increase in local economic output
Employees of
Suppliers
Accumulation of
human capital,
empowerment and
self confidence
The cost of external skills courses could be used.
The increase in wages resulting from greater
levels of human capital. Willingness to pay for
courses
Funder increased
customers
Increased BEE
scorecard
Increased value (revenue and profit) and
increased value of additional/new tenders
awarded
Wider Local
Community
Increased welfare –
i.e. lower
unemployment,
improved health,
education
The value of
reduction in public
expenditure on
health care services
and unemployment
benefits
Local Government
Local Economic
Development
Increased rates and
taxes and income

Rural electrification of
village
Local businesses
Greater output and
productivity
The economic value of
increased revenue and
reduced costs. The
increase in local
economic output could
be estimated with
multiplier analysis
Local Students
Improved quality of
education, better grades
Increased wages resulting
from improved education
levels
Local Households
Increased safety and
security, improved and
increased access to
information and
communication, and
improved quality of life
Monetary value of
savings
Investor/Donor
Increased publicity
Value of increased
publicity
Increased employee
morale, participation,
skills development
Value (savings) of
retained employees

Training of
local
farmers
Farmers
and their
families
Greater output and
productivity,
income and
empowerment
The economic value of
increased revenue and
reduced costs
The increase of local
economic output could be
estimated with multiplier
analysis – housing, health
and education
Local
Authorities
Increased
tax revenue
The value of
increased
income tax and
export duties
Local Consumers
and Communities
Improved
quality and
quantity of
food
The value of
increased
consumption
The value of
increased savings
The value of
Increased quality of
life, in particular
health which lead
to increased
productivity
Decline in infant
mortality and
maternal mortality
Improved life
expectancy
Intermediary
Increased
income,
increased
employment
The value of
leveraged
resources
Attraction of new
resources/donors
Value of
salaries
Value of
publicity

Reporting
Sustainability and Integrated Reporting
Lack of Evidence:
Impact and return in current reporting practices

Evidence in reporting:
Sustainability Reporting
• Companies usually focus on reporting their own performance in
relation to community initiatives as opposed to what changes or
benefits occur for people and the environment as a result of their
activities.
• Thus, it is often difficult to paint a picture of community impact
based on the information in the reports. Additionally most
information in reports are quantitative figures as opposed to
qualitative data that reflects actual changes or impact occurred.
• The majority of companies emphasize their positive contributions
without mentioning any negative impacts. Those who do report
their negative impacts mostly focus on environment related
problems.
• While there are differences between different topics being
reporting on, there is limited ability to break down performance
and impact in relation to region or operation.
• Fifty percent of companies reporting on topics such as
Philanthropy and Charitable Giving, Community Services,
Employee Volunteering and Cause Related Marketing do not
indicate general approaches, policies or goals behind activities.
• Sections of the reports with a ‘community focus’ more often focus
on topics related to charity and philanthropy than sustainable
community development where issues related to the local
economy, the local environment and society and the business itself
are taken into consideration.
• Information related to Community Environmental Impact due to
Operations and Community Environmental Campaign/Problem
Solving is most frequently located in the Environmental section of
the report.
• Information related to Direct Economic Impact and Helping Local
Business/Producers is often placed in the Economic section of
reports.
• There are differences in reporting patterns between sectors. For
example Community Engagement and Dialogue appears to be an
important topic in the mining sector where 90 percent of the
sector’s companies report on these issues. For the chemical sector,
only 20 percent of the companies report on this.

Sustainability Reporting:
• Top 3 indicators for Education and Training
• Number of people benefited/reached by the education
initiatives
• Amount of money invested/donated in the education
initiatives
• Number of education-related activities (e.g. seminar,
classes, conferences etc.) held
• Top 3 indicators for Philanthropy and Charitable Giving
• Sum of money donated/raised/contributed to community
initiatives
• Percentage or number of people (organizations)
granted/sponsored/supported/covered by the donated
services
• Number or quantity of scholarships/material/services
donated (no value of money indicated)
• Top 3 indicators for Community Services and Employee
Volunteering
• Number of people/organizations/projects benefited, served
or implemented
• Number of volunteers
• Number of volunteering hours
• Top 3 indicators for Total Community Expenditure
• Amount of money spent in community investment
• Percentage of profit/revenue/income spent in community
investment
• Percentage increase of money spent on social investment,
compared to last year
• Number of people benefited in community investment
activities
• Number of projects developed and completed
• Top 3 indicators for Community Engagement and Dialogue
• Number of visitors, audience and participants reached
• Percentage/number of sites where community engagement
activities were performed
• Frequency of meetings

Integrated Reporting:
Input
•How much money
+ other resources
was spend
Activities
•What happened
as a result of
invested
resources
•Seed funding 3
businesses
•Build a school
Output
•Detail of
interventions
•2 Suppliers
business
development
courses
•2 Suppliers
seed/grant
funding for
machines
•2000 Senior
Secondary
School Students
Outcome
•Improved our
supplier network
•Achieved our BEE
Scorecard Points
•Contributed and
enhanced our
corporate
citizenship
•Number of
entrepreneurs
•Number of
students
•Increased pass
rates
•Anecdotal
evidence – few
pictures
Impact
•Nothing on
economic value
created apart
from cost/input
resources
•Nothing on social
value created –
either
qualitatively or
quantitatively
•Nothing on
positive or
negative impact –
improved/enhanc
ed impact or
diminished value
or trade offs
Return
•Nothing on
benefits gained
from investments
•Contributes to
our future
sustainability

In Conclusion
What we have learnt

What our clients say:
Funders
It provides validation of investment decisions
Opportunities for increased partnerships and
collaboration
Contributes to better financial, project and risk
management/reporting
Contributes to learning, capacity building and better
results (impact)
The outcome of the process informs sustainability and
integrated reports
The detailed stakeholder engagement process provide
insight never documented or previously considered in
evaluations
The impact assessment process not only provides
guidance for future strategies and programs, but
identify areas requiring attention, confirms whether
the needs of beneficiaries are met, it monitors
relationships, the lessons learnt provide detailed
actions of issues that needs to be addressed and
improved, and it informs future best practice
Intermediaries
We feel comfortable with the transparency
of the process
The process have added value to our own
work – especially M&E and reporting
practices
The processes have increased our
effectiveness and own performance;
increased our learning and knowledge;
built internal capacity; and increased our
credibility
We believe we were assured independently
by someone who can verify our claims – it
validated our own beliefs
We have learnt the value of qualitative
indicators, to consider impact more broadly
and we are now more convinced of the
actual value of our program
It ensured increased funding for both
programmes, internal capacity and
increased our own sustainability
Beneficiaries
We had an opportunity to talk without being
judged – we could be honest
We learnt to document our own work and
the contribution we made
We feel we are being trusted, being heard
and someone asks our opinion
We had an opportunity to share and learn
Competitors
Transparent process
Credible and verifiable process considering
all stakeholders input
Contributes to more efficient and integrated
strategies, policies, programs
Contributes to industry capacity building

The next level of impact assessments:
Static Impact
• No
movement –
no change
Changed Impact
• Increased or
decreased
impact
Sustained
Impact
• Impact
validated and
confirmed
over time

Impact: Thinking beyond evaluations:
Key Question
What do we
want to
know?
Criteria for
impact/value
of impact
What
matters?
Standards
and
Definitions
What would
indicate
impact?
Can we
define the
impact and
envisaged /
required
Information
How will we
know?
What
evidence do
we need/
have?
Method
How will we
determine
impact or
gather
evidence?
What level of
engagement
will be
required?
Analysis
What impact
was
achieved?
What does
the evidence
show?
How can it be
confirmed and
collaborated?
What tools will we
use?
What skills do we need to draw
conclusions?
Synthesis
and
Triangulation
So what?
Do we share
the results/
outcomes
What would
have
happened
anyway?
Decision
Now what?
Please see: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/grantmaking-getting-right-indicators-measure-success-reana-rossouw

Reana Rossouw
Next Generation Consultants
• Website: www.nextgeneration.co.za
• Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/next-generation-consultants and https://www.linkedin.com/in/reanarossouw
• Google+: ttps://plus.google.com/+reana rossouw
• Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/reanarossouw/
• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/nextgenerationconsultants/
• Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/Reana1

Measuring the impact and return of social and community programs

More Related Content

What's hot (13)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to Measuring the impact and return of social and community programs (20)

More from Next Generation Consultants: Reana Rossouw (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Measuring the impact and return of social and community programs