Section 3 - Securing and Measuring Added Value
3.2 Measuring Added Value
The examples of added value identified by the study are so diverse that there is plainly no simple or single way to measure them. This issue is further discussed in Section 4 below, since it relates to the measurement of performance more generally.
However, it seems that the design of measures of added value is a function of the project development process that would involve answering the following questions:
- what are the problems this project is designed to solve - or, put differently, what are its objectives?
- what evidence is there of the extent of the problem - what is the baseline?
- what would be the sign that the project had succeeded, that it had made a difference - and, critically, in relation to each of the objectives?
- what indicators could be used to measure that and how would they be collected?
The following example illustrates the procedure and its implications for data capture.
|
Measuring Added Value
Example: Looked After Children (LAC)
Problems: include lack of co-ordination of support activities by the various agencies with responsibility for children in care.
Baseline measures: for example, numbers of care homes with staff member responsible for education.
Objectives: (among others) to develop a network of agencies that expect to collaborate on issues to do with the education of children in care.
Signs of success (or added value): in addition to measures of children's performance, these would include evidence that teachers and care workers expect to (and do) work together.
Indicators: for example, attendance at case conferences, identification of staff with responsibility for inter-agency co-operation.
|
Since the creation of partnership approaches is one of the objectives of the scheme, it is legitimate to treat it as an example of added value, and to attempt to measure its achievement. However, partnership building is only an operational objective (though no less important for that). But the LAC example demonstrates the difficulties inherent in measuring the added value of outcomes.
In part, this is a function of the complexity of issues tackled through project interventions. LAC offers a good, if extreme, illustration. There is a wealth of evidence to show links between a history of care and subsequent homelessness, risk of criminality and vulnerability to drugs and prostitution. Part of that cycle is explained by low levels of educational achievement, and the subsequent lack of employability. If LAC interventions are successful in improving participation in learning for this highly vulnerable group, the downstream added value is likely to be substantial, but:
- the added value emerges (potentially many) years later;
- savings accrue to other parts of the public sector budget (criminal justice, social services, DSS etc); and
- it may be difficult to attribute the added value directly to the project.
As Section 4 discusses, the key is to define measures of performance (including added value) that both illuminate a project's achievements in a meaningful way, and are reasonably available during the project's lifetime.
