KNOWLEDGE , ATTITUDES AND PRACTICE OF IMPACT MEASUREMENT Knowledge : The survey indicates a reasonable level of knowledge of impact measurement , with half of the respondents describing themselves as having a good or excellent knowledge and awareness of it , and only 5 % with no knowledge or awareness . However , if impact measurement is seen as something that is an essential activity of an effective social purpose organisation , the survey highlights that there is still some way to go , with 45 % describing their knowledge and awareness as poor .
Interestingly , amongst the small number of investors ( 22 ) 73 % described their knowledge as excellent or good . This could be an indication of the agenda being driven by donors and investors focused on measuring their ‘ social return ’.
Over the last decade a number of frameworks and tools have been developed to help organisations understand , measure and report their impact . The
68 %
DESCRIBED IMPACT MEASUREMENT AS “ ESSENTIAL ” TO THEIR ORGANISATION
survey listed sixteen frameworks and tools . All of these were familiar to some respondents to varying degrees . Only Social Return on Investment ( SROI ) was well known ( by 67 % of respondents ); 40 % were aware of the Inspiring Impact resources ,
NPC ’ s Four Pillar approach , the Outcomes Star and PQASSO . In addition , some respondents made specific mention of HACT ’ s Wellbeing Measurement Tool and the Big Society Capital Outcomes Matrix . Among international respondents , the IRIS metrics , managed the Global Impact Investing Network ( GIIN ), were most well-known .
Attitude : There is often a sense of impact measurement being seen as a costly and time-consuming burden ; indeed this was raised as the number one challenge in the 2012 NPC survey . Interestingly , in this survey only 12 % of respondents felt that the cost of impact management to their organisation was too high .
Generally , respondents recognized the value of impact measurement with 68 % describing impact measurement as “ essential ” to their organisation and 26 % as “ desirable / nice to have ”. Only 6 % stated impact measurement was “ unnecessary ”.
Practice : Two-thirds of organisations have used one or more impact measurement tools . Mostly they are using methodologies and tools developed by third parties , with only 7 % of respondents indicating that they have developed their own .
In contrast to the NPC survey where only 5 % saw “ wanting to improve services ” as a primary driver for impact measurement , this survey revealed a much greater commitment to using impact information for a range of purposes . Around three-quarters felt that impact information was crucial or important for a range of both internal and external needs – notably with the greatest emphasis on internal business rather than external reporting / fundraising ( see table below ).
HOW IMPORTANT IS IMPACT MEASUREMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING ?
Improving business and the services provided to improve impact
Crucial Important Useful
Not important
50 % 31 % 12 % 7 %
To communicate your organisation ' s work 43 % 42 % 12 % 3 %
To attract funding and investment 36 % 36 % 19 % 9 %
Winning business and contracts 27 % 28 % 28 % 16 %
To your customers 22 % 42 % 24 % 12 %
To your board 28 % 44 % 22 % 5 %
48 | PPQ