RESEARCH AND EVALUATION NETWORK

16.06.16 at London Funders

Participants

CraigTomlinsonBBC Children in Need

SufinaAhmadBig Lottery Fund

CandiceMotranBig Society Capital

RohanMartyresCAN

ClareReillyCitizens Advice

WilliamJacksHenry Smith Charity

ChichiOnyenemeluHyde Charitable Trust

SarahThurmanHyde Charitable Trust

EllaMuirImperial College Healthcare Charity

AlexVan ViletLloyds Bank Foundation

JeremyYungLocal Trust

KirstyGillan-ThomasPaul Hamlyn Foundation

DanielPearmainPeople's Health Trust

SueHollowayProject Oracle

ChristineBradleySave the Children

AnitaPathakSave the Children

KatharineRobinsonYouth Music

NickWilsdonYouth Music

In attendance

Geraldine ToveyLondon Funders

Notes of the previous meeting on 10thMarch 2016 were accepted as an accurate record.

Craig welcomed everyone and informed attendees that he was excited to hear about Big Society Capital’s Theory of Change. He hoped that it would offer inspiration for others thinking about impact.

He also looked back at the previous meeting’s presentation from the Sport for Development Coalition and was impressed by how its discourse has had a direct impact on central government. It would be beneficial to check back with them in the future to see what further progress has been made.

Big Society Capital- Theory of Change (Social Impact Plan)

Candice introduced herself to attendees of the meeting and reminded them that impact measurement is never ‘one size fits all’.

Big Society Capital Overview

Big Society Capital was set up in 2012 as a social investment wholesaler that is separate to government. It uses money from dormant bank accounts as well as contributions from the four Merlin high street banks. Because of this structure, banks are shareholders of Big Society Capital. BSC is both an investor and a ‘market champion’.

BSC is keen for both social and financial return and aims to ‘build the market’. It co-invests, and does not invest directly into charities or social enterprises, but instead into intermediaries and infrastructure organisations (such as Charity Bank). In turn, the intermediaries invest in the social sector.

Big Society Capital has developed an ‘Outcomes Matrix’ to categorise impact. It is used for the organisation to think about where it is having best impact upon its beneficiary groups.

Overall BSC aims to encourage market growth via social investment in 4 ways:

  1. Providing greater access to funds to small charities and social enterprises
  2. Scaling innovative interventions
  3. Encouraging more local social investment from communities and into local projects
  4. Bringing greater financial scale to the market from other investors into larger scale deals

Achievements to Date

BSC has been incrementally adding things to its impact repertoire. All of its resources are available online. The organisation is now being far more pro-active regarding impact measurement, and assessing what positive impact looks like for communities.

In 2014, pre-due diligence screening was introduced to see if proposals for funding fit in with BSC’s aims from an ‘ideological perspective’, and to help give prospective investees a quick yes/no. The organisation has also started to develop impact reports and case studies to benefit investees. BSC is also beginning to run stakeholders surveys to gain further detail of the impact that they are having on investees.

Furthermore the Impact Readiness Fund was established to help charities to measure impact better (but is now closed). This fund has been provided by the Cabinet Office. On its panel are a mix of social investors, advisors and intermediaries.

Introduction of the Theory of Change

Big Society Capital’s development of a Theory of Change was triggered by its annual reporting cycle, and a drive to show the methodology of its actions. To ensure that the ToC was published alongside the 2014 reports, BSC’s Theory of Change went through a very quick process rather than the usual formal routine. In the summer of 2015 there was a ‘sense check’ where the organisation looked back on its ToC and made minor alterations.

During the sense check, BSC talked with international foundations and organisations to gain inspiration, as well as to get a sense of what was needed in the market.

Many organisations called for shared measurement frameworks in issue areas (such as children and young people). BSC is looking at developing this further with partnerships.

In addition, the importance of shared impact data was identified as a common theme. Leading from these conversations, supporting intermediaries has been identified as a vital part of BSC’s work. A shared evaluation framework for investees has been discussed, alongside a common matrix across sectors.

Following on from international discussions, BSC received feedback from the UK, and its investees in particular. The openness of the organisation in regards to its impact and approach was praised, but overall investees did not feel like evaluation and impact reports were standardised enough. It was suggested that peer reviews may be used to improve this. Furthermore, frontline capacity also needs to be developed and information disseminated from BSC needs to be simplified.

Moreover, investees and BSC itself are unclear about what its role in the market should be- whether the organisation should act as a leader on impact or simply be a model of good practice.

Attendees then discussed whether some of the work around measurement standards has been already covered by Inspiring Impact and the Charity Evaluation Service. It was concluded that although ‘measuring the good’ is a useful tool, it does not cover as wide a range of evaluation measures and reforms as the Big Society Capital Theory of Change is proposing.

BSC has been keen to learn from the intermediary organisations that it invests in about impact measurement, because many have been in existence for far longer than BSC itself. Stemming from this, Big Society Capital is looking at co-operating with other organisations on a shared measurement framework. Candice mentioned that BSC is aware that this could be a long and difficult process.

Meeting attendees shared their organisation’s input to improving measurement frameworks in the sector. Children in Need promotes its outcomes framework and supports grantees in starting to think about measurement, but do not stipulate what and how to measure. Also, The Educational Endowment Fund and the Health Foundation have done research about measurement indicators and the characteristics of good measurement.

However, the Big Lottery Fund’s Women and Girls initiative team found that endorsing certain frameworks was problematic. It was noted that this was difficult when the sector is a bit behind on measurement in general, and that it made it difficult for Big Lottery to remain impartial.

Candice noted that the ultimate aim for BSC would be for comparability of measurement, but that this is a long way off! The benefit to this would be that many funders would begin to use the same framework, although this is obviously a difficult task when funders all have unique frameworks and aims.

Candice emphasised the importance ofinvestees being aware of why measurements are used, and how they in turn can learn from them. It can be difficult to have a ‘buy in’ from investees if measurement frameworks are implemented in a ‘top-down’ approach. In addition it was discussed that it is vital that any shared measurement framework does not become ‘evaluation by numbers’. It is important not to stifle creativity, and prescribing methods can remove autonomy from frontline organisations.

It is also debatable what measurement tools should be used, and whether BSC can recommend just one. Small organisations often do not have the capacity to use any specialist measurement processes- this is something which NESTA has identified as an issue as well through their Standards of Evidence. BSC will need to be receptive to small organisations and ensure that they have a good repertoire of tools available. Notwithstanding, university frameworks and ethics committees need to be considered.

There is a challenge for Big Society Capital because the development of a shared measurement framework is a ‘political process’. Tensions may arise, and it will be important for BSC to ‘weave between’ organisations, and be mindful that its actions will have wide-reaching implications. The Access Foundation and Power to Change are also commissioning pieces of work in this area. Charity Bank also has been measuring new outcomes, maintained outcomes and improved outcomes- clearly demonstrating good practice.

Aside from taking into consideration the wider context of the market, BSC is also mindful that any actions that they take must benefit their priority group of vulnerable and disadvantaged people. BSC ultimately aims to produce additional capacity for organisations to evidence impact, grow revenues and re-invest in impact and ‘up-size’ successful projects. Additional social outcomes are an aspiration for BSC to work towards in the future.

Candice concluded that BSC’s Theory of Change is still in development and that the KPIs across the organisation do link back to the ToC in some way. It is difficult to measure some outcomes, and Big Society Capital is currently setting up a salesforce system to capture information such as mission, targets and outcomes of its grantees. In many cases, BSC is keen to simply get its grantees to start reporting. The attendees emphasised that a culture of honesty (including reporting failure) is important for learning!

BSC has a roadmap/strategic vision which will last until 2020 which will be published soon.

Updates

  • Project Oracle is now a registered charity and will be expanding outside of London to other cities- starting with Manchester. The organisation will also be providing further training to evidence champions.
  • The People’s Health Trust wants to implement a common outcomes questionnaire and look at what further infrastructure is needed in civil society for health. Any advice on data management would be appreciated.
  • Youth Music has signed off on a four year business plan. It is looking at measurement outcomes and legacy data. They have recently moved databases from ‘Gifts’ to ‘CC- Grant Checker’, and is currently working through issues around accessing data.
  • Attendees discussed the importance in looking ahead at potential pitfalls for data management, as well as the pros and cons of ‘Gifts’ as a grants management database.
  • Big Lottery Fund has launched a debate on the ‘future of doing good’, with a series of events occurring across the country. There are also new recruits in the UK directorate to realise Big’s long terms vision regarding knowledge and learning. There is also an internal review assessing wither Big should remain solely a project funder. The organisation is also looking to make social investment less of an ‘add on’ and instead have it become more integrated into its grantmaking.
  • Craig mentioned suggested that the ‘Theories of Philanthropy’ by Michael Quinn Patten has provided a useful way of thinking at Children in Need may help funders think about how what they do enables outcomes, as opposed to deliver them.
  • The Lloyds Bank Foundation has published its grantmaking to 360 Giving and is going to promote its findings further. Children in Need, Paul Hamlyn Foundation and Comic Relief will all be publishing their grantmaking too. It was also mentioned that 360 Giving has a new programme- Grant Nav.
  • Big Society Capital has two new funds being launched. The first is an Early Years impact Fund, working alongside the Cabinet Office to provide pre-school provision in deprived areas. The second is a fund looking at the ‘poverty premium’ working alongside the Joseph Roundtree Foundation, looking at the extra costs incurred when in poverty.

Conclusion

Craig thanked the group for coming to the meeting, and encouraged funders to continue these discussions. It is great that more funders are coming together and collaborating. He is looking forward to future presentations from London Funders, IVAR and Children in Need.

1