2016 and 2017 Return on Investment, Development Impact

Impact Assessments:
Lessons Learnt
2015/2016
REANA ROSSOUW:
NEXT GENERATION CONSULTANTS

Who we are:
 Next Generation Consultants helps organisations to become more
sustainable and have greater positive impact on the economy, society and
the environment.
 In the community/social 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 Investment Impact Index™ - a methodology that
measures the impact and return on investment of social/community and
enterprise development investments.
 We are recognised as industry/subject experts and thought leaders within
the sustainable/social/ community development sectors.
2016/05/03Next Generation Consultants
2
Please see: http://www.slideshare.net/Reana1/measuring-impact-and-return-on-investment-of-corporate-social-investment-and-
community-development AND http://www.slideshare.net/Reana1/evidence-of-impact-and-return-on-investment-

Background:
 Our vision
 To continuously contribute to increased socio economic impact and ensure
enhanced shared value and sustainability for all shareholders on the continent
 Our Context
 We have developed the Investment Impact Index (III)™ in 2009.
 Since then we have assessed R3 billion worth of social/community and enterprise
development investments. This included the assessment of more than 600 programs
across 15 focus areas/investment portfolio’s.
 As an outcome of our work we have developed an indicator library with more than 5
000 indicators. We have also identified 15 dimensions of impact and more than 15
dimensions of return.
 Evidence
 This presentation is an update and representation of our work, case studies and
evidence of impact and return for major funders in Africa. In particular – to assist the
industry with developing indicators to measure impact and return.
3

Why measure impact?
 To improve and consider a range of
stakeholder opinions, communication
and reporting
 To plan/revise a program/strategy
 To strengthen/inform future work
 To learn/confirm whether original
objectives were achieved
 To learn/understand/quantify and
qualify outcomes, impact and return
 To consider all input resources
collectively
 To provide an opportunity to not only
confirm impact (change) but also to
understand what was done right/wrong
 It provides a holistic overview of all
investments – collectively – and
individually
 To make resource allocation decisions
 To share organisational and
development practices within the field
 To share best practices/lessons learnt
 To learn about implementation
 In support of advocacy/policy
recommendations
 To contribute to the development of a
body of knowledge in the field/sector
 To implement/determine sustainability
scaling/replication strategies
 To strengthen public policy
4

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.
5

How the model works: (1)
6
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

How the model works (2)
7
• Strategic, operational and programmatic impact
• Impact and Return per program
• Impact and Return per portfolio
• Impact and Return on total investment
Investor (ROI)
• Organisational Impact
Intermediary (Impact)
• Individual/Community Impact
• Thematic Impact
Beneficiary (Impact

Key attributes of the III™:
 Measures value to both society and the business
 The model builds on existing measures of value, complementing these with the
broader impacts of business on society – and the social value created through the
process – as required by current reporting frameworks
 Backward and forward looking
 The model can be applied looking backwards (past investments/programs) to
understand the value generated and looking forward (future possible impact) to
inform strategy and project/investment related decisions
 Flexible: The model can be applied at multiple levels – for:
 1. Singular programs/interventions
 2. Specific projects in a particular portfolio (i.e. education, health, etc.)
 3. Impacts in a country or region or sector (i.e. local development, national or mining)
 4. Within a portfolio or across the entire investment portfolio (total investment portfolio)
 5. Equally it can be applied in social/community/socio economic or enterprise development
contexts
8

Key attributes continue:
 A balanced understanding of impact
 By covering all the key aspects of impact – the model provides a holistic and balanced view of value
creation – not just positive impact but also negative impact, trade-off’s, causality and attribution
 Consistent information
 By analysing quantitative and qualitative data – through comparing, synthesizing and triangulating data –
over time and between different strategic objectives – by involving stakeholders – a balanced and
consistent view of impact can be built – agreed too and confirmed by all stakeholders
 Comparable information
 By equalising all impact and return (to the value of 1) – it provides for comparison across different types of
impacts – which provides value no matter the type or size of investment/input resources
 Produces decision ready/useful information
 It provides a strengthened basis for decision-making, (for all stakeholders) and provides timely and reliable
data that employs estimates, assumptions and attribution that are fit for purpose to make better informed
decisions and engage stakeholders in meaningful discussions
 Focuses on material impacts
 One size does not fit all. The framework enables funders to select their focus and impact as well as return
9

State of current
Practice:
THE FOLLOWING
RESEARCH DATA IS THE
OUTCOME OF OUR OWN
RESEARCH DURING
IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
10

The state of M & E practices:
11
90% of all funders and intermediaries measure their work through quantitative assessment
75% of all funders and intermediaries claim they have the capacity to measure their work
58% of all funders and intermediaries have a framework to measure their work
24 % of all funders and intermediaries
have a data evaluation framework
25% of all funders and intermediaries
have an evaluation plan
5% of all funders collect qualitative
date

Barriers to evaluation:
12
Limited staff time (71%)
Insufficient financial resources (61%)
Funders:
Funders asking for the wrong data (32%)
Funders and intermediaries:
Don’t know where to find
expertise/independent evaluators (21%)
Limited staff expertise
(43%)
Intermediaries:
Low on list of priorities (Fundraising, financial
management and communications) are more
important (20%)

The issues experienced during
program impact assessments:
-
There is no evidence that
selected programs have
conducted feasibility,
efficiency, viability,
sustainability or cost
benefit analysis
There is no evidence that
selection criteria are being
applied to the suitability of
selected programs for
envisaged impact
+
All programs can be
monitored and evaluated
All programs fulfil some
social need
Next Generation Consultants
13

The issues experienced during focus
area impact assessments:
14
-
On average each funder in SA has
4 focus areas
Generally – each focus area are
seen as completely separate
investment areas
Focus areas are aligned (after the
fact) to popular development
contexts (NDP/SDG’s)
There is no evidence in SA that
focus areas were chosen based on
community stakeholder input
+
There is some evidence that focus areas are based on
future business priorities (i.e. education)
There is some evidence that selection criteria for
programs is based on focus area selection (indicators
to measure progress in a specific context) – mostly
quantitative
There is little evidence that focus areas support the
overall vision, mission, strategic objectives and intent
of investment strategies
There is very little evidence that focus areas are
integrated to leverage and extend impact envisaged

Overall - Limited Impact is
evident:
 Limited understanding of the often
complex local contexts
 Insufficient participation and
ownership by local
stakeholders/beneficiaries
 A perception of giving rather than
investment
 Detachment from core business
strategy and competencies
 Responding to local requests in an
ad hoc manner without clear focus
 Lack of sufficient planning, scoping,
clear objectives, outcomes
 Lack of transparency and clear criteria
 Lack of due diligence, budget oversight,
insufficient management processes
 Insufficient focus on sustainability
 Lack of both professionalism and skills
 No exit or handover strategy
 Overemphasis on infrastructure and under-
emphasis on other development areas such
as skills/capacity building
 Failure to measure and communicate results
either during or after project completion
 And most importantly, the lack of delivery
and fulfilment of promises and commitments
by funders
15

Key challenges:
Trade Off’s
 Negative impact vs benefits
 Loss of income from current
livelihoods because of delayed
implementation
 Restricted local economic
development because of lack of
support from government
 Encouraged competition – increased
prices – community
activism/jealousy
 Increase water/energy consumption
or increased carbon emissions
Attribution
 What would have happened
anyway?
 What about
policy/structural/unforeseen
changes/challenges
 What other factors could
contribute to the impact – i.e.
other funders, policy changes,
etc.
16

Aspects of
Impact
LEARNING FROM OUR
EXPERIENCE
17

A different perspective of the
Impact value chain: Our Model -
III™
2016/05/03
18
 There are many views and perspectives of impact – not just input, activities, outputs and
outcomes:
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
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.)
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)

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
19

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.
20

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.
21

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.
22

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.
23

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).
24

Aspects of
Return on
Investment
LEARNING FROM OUR
EXPERIENCE
25

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
Changes 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
26
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
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
27

ROI Impact:
Profit Aspects
Sales generated from programs
Value of new products and
services generated from CI/CSI
programs
Increased worker productivity
Increased share price (e.g. from
attention of socially-screened
investment funds)
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
28

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 received from media
coverage of the CI/CSI
programs
Legal fees averted (includes
legal department staff time and
projected billable hours from
contracted firms)
Savings Aspects
Cont
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 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
29

ROI Impact:
Customer Aspects
Surveys indicating improved customer
perceptions and impacts on shopping
decisions
Sales leads generated in specific geographic
or demographic markets
Development/increased sales of specific
products/services in targeted geographic or
demographic markets
Annual brand tracking surveys indicating
higher scores
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.)
Compliance Aspects
B-BBEEE
Licence to operate
SLP Mandate/Strategy
DMR/King III/ICMM/IPIECA
Approval rates/new
explorations/extensions
Rehabilitation
Drop in complaints/grievances
Global Compliance
2016/05/03
30

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 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
 Satisfaction surveys indicating positive impact and anecdotal evidence
 Employee training programs designed to use volunteers and products with
most donations
 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
 Community job creation / empowerment
 Improved stakeholder relations within the
community
 Poverty reduction
2016/05/03
31

In Conclusion OUR NEW ROADMAP
32

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
2016/05/17
33
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:
34
Static Impact
No movement –
no change
Changed Impact
Increased or
decreased impact
Sustained
Impact
Impact validated
and confirmed
over time

Direction of impact:
Adverse or beneficial
impact
 Do some stakeholders benefit
more than others
 Are there trade offs between
potential negative and positive
impact
 Is the impact sustainable or time
bound
 Will impact escalate or diminish
over time
Impact manageability
 What will be required in future
to maintain the impact
 How resilient is the impact
 Is mitigation required to
enhance the impact
 How could impact be
accelerated
 How could vulnerability be
managed with adverse impact
35

Final Thoughts:
 It is our opinion that the ability to quantify and qualify impact must receive much greater
attention in future. It is the core of developmental work as the basic assumption is that:
 1) Resources are applied
 2) Activities are conducted
 3) Qualitative change and impact and outcomes are the ultimate expectation that will lead to change in a
specific social context
 The development fundamental principle – also referred to a ‘theory of change’ is the
cornerstone of social/community development. Therefore being able to identify what changes
in a developmental context is the primary reason for doing community investment and
development in the first place.
 The fact that both funders and intermediaries have difficulty identifying qualitative impacts
indicates a lack of not only:
 1) Understanding developmental principles
 2) Contextualising developmental outcomes
 3) Quantify and qualify developmental impacts as a result (outcome) of their own (designed and
implemented) intervention
 The reason why qualitative impact is the most complex aspect to measure; is quite simply,
because both intermediaries and CSI/SED program managers/practitioners are at a loss of
HOW to develop and identify indicators to measure such change
2016/05/03
36

37
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?

Reana Rossouw
Next Generation
Consultants
• WEBSITE: WWW.NEXTGENERATION.CO.ZA
• LINKEDIN:
HTTPS://WWW.LINKEDIN.COM/COMPANY/NEXT-GENERATION-CONSULTANTS
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

2016 and 2017 Return on Investment, Development Impact

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (19)

Ähnlich wie 2016 and 2017 Return on Investment, Development Impact

Ähnlich wie 2016 and 2017 Return on Investment, Development Impact (20)

Mehr von Next Generation Consultants: Reana Rossouw

Mehr von Next Generation Consultants: Reana Rossouw (10)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

2016 and 2017 Return on Investment, Development Impact