Osca, with the involvement of NPC, hosted an event in September of 2015 that explored the implications of shared measurement for social programmes. Starting with the premise that more, and increasingly public, measurement is inevitable, we discussed what this means for social programmes, and how different participants can play an active part in defining the rules of the game. Or be left out.
Genevieve Maitland Hudson (Osca) outlined how simple measures that allow for the comparison of social programmes from the outside, by funders, commissioners and the general public can give a quick and dirty insight into the quality of programme delivery. She also outlined how a good objective measure can be aligned with subjective questions to simplify outcome measurement, and perhaps even to stand in for it.
Tris Lumley (NPC) discussed why theory of change and impact measurement activity isn’t doing what it set out to do, and suggested better alternatives through the use of simpler, shared metrics.
Bethia McNeil (Centre for Youth Impact) considered the implications for providers’ relationship with evidence and impact, and argued that we need to consider whose game we’re playing, before we start to define the rules.