THE RESPONDENTS
The survey was broadly circulated and the 184 respondents
were therefore self-selected. 74% were from charities and
social enterprises, 12% social investors and 14% other. This
article focuses on the views of the 130 charities and social
enterprises, 84% of which are from the UK and 16% from
other countries.
These organisations work in diverse sectors including
the arts, education and youth, employment and training,
environment, finance, hospitality and catering, housing,
health and social care, leisure, retail (including fair
trade), regeneration and community development and
renewable energy.
Respondents ranged in size but the majority were larger
organisations: three-quarters have an annual turnover
in excess of £250,000, half over £1 million, and over a
fifth over £5 million. The NPC 2012 survey found that
larger charities were more likely to have engaged with
and be more positive than smaller charities about impact
measurement, hence this is a bias that should be noted.
years to achieve a greater balance with ‘improving’? How does
impact measurement fit with the broader organisational practices
used to create social value? Is the next evolution a shift from
impact measurement to impact management, where impact
measurement is just one component of how a business operates to
maximise impact?
With a view to understanding the practitioner perspective on these
issues Buzzacott, Matter & Co. and The Good Economy Partnership
undertook a survey which explored the following questions:
• How important do practitioners feel that impact measurement
is and are they investing resources in impact measurement?
• How familiar are social purpose organisations with the tools
and approaches available?
• To what extent are they using these tools?
• How well suited to social purpose organisations’ needs and
capacity are the available tools and approaches, and does the
supporting infrastructure effectively guide their effective and
cost-effective use?
• How does measurement fit into the way in which organisations
are designed and managed to maximise impact, and what are
the practices that are prioritised?
Drawing on survey responses from 130 social enterprises
and charities this article explores the state of play in impact
measurement and management from the frontline perspective.
THE ESSAY
—
CONTEXT
The last decade has seen an increase in impact measurement
and reporting among social purpose organisations and a call for
more systemised impact data and reporting. In theory, impact
measurement promises to provide the information for social
purpose organisations to:
1. Improve impact. Provide information that can be cost
effectively collected and used to provide insights and inform
decision-making about strategy, targeting, service provision and
resource allocation.
2. Prove impact. Provide robust and credible evidence for external
reporting to demonstrate the positive social impact your
organisation is having.
Progress has been made in recent years with the development
of frameworks, tools and metrics to measure and report on
impact. But has the burgeoning of impact measurement activity
succeeded in meeting both objectives of driving learning and
improvement as well as proving impact? Is there a tension between
these goals with ‘improving’ needing fast, action-able data and
‘proving’ needing more rigorous and independently verified data?
A survey conducted by New Philanthropy Capital (NPC)
in 2012 suggested that most impact measurement at that time
was driven by the ‘proving’ agenda – both external reporting
requirements and the internal desire to use impact data for
marketing. To what extent has practice evolved in the last four
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
14%
12%
74%
CHARITIES AND SOCIAL ENTERPRISES
SOCIAL INVESTORS
OTHER
PPQ | 47