Edward T. Jackson

Interrogating the theory of change: evaluating impact investing where it matters most

How is impact investing evaluated? How can and should it be evaluated? Over the past 5 years, there has been solid progress in developing social impact metrics at the industry-wide, firm and investment levels and the industry is becoming increasingly data-rich. Nevertheless, evaluation practices still tend to focus on counting inputs and outputs, and telling stories. Moreover, an important element is too often underdeveloped, invisible, not explicit or missing altogether. That element is theory of change, an approach and tool drawn from the field of program evaluation. This article reviews cases where theory of change has, in fact, been used to good effect at various levels of the impact investing industry. It also discusses a range of qualitative and quantitative methods which could be usefully blended with the theory of change approach, and affirms the equally important imperatives of accountability and learning across all combinations of methods. The article concludes that a more comprehensive application of theory of change to all levels of the field is required – and especially to the micro-level of individuals, households and communities, where the results of impact investments matter most. Such an approach can help build an impact investing industry that is adaptive, transparent and self-sustaining. To this end, creating an ongoing dialogue between the development evaluation field and the impact investing industry, and designing and launching new education and training initiatives, are key tasks in the years ahead.

Evaluating social impact bonds: questions, challenges, innovations, and possibilities in measuring outcomes in impact investing

Against a backdrop of economic turbulence and fiscal austerity, governments in the advanced economies are increasingly testing social impact bonds (SIBs) as a way of supplementing the public financing of social programs. SIBs are part of the emerging impact investing industry, where investors aim to achieve social or environmental objectives, as well as financial returns. As more SIBs move into execution, there is a need for independent evaluations of their outcomes and impacts that promote both accountability and learning, interrogate theories of change, and engage beneficiary stakeholders. Community development professionals should learn more about SIBs, explicate the relationships among individual, household, and community results, and support communities in holding SIB investors and sponsors to account for their declared intentions and outcome targets.

University Capital, Community Engagement, and Continuing Education: Blending Professional Development and Social Change

professional development and social change: the investment of university capital in community projects. Increasing interest in applying social and environmental, as well as financial, criteria to the investment of university capital assets has been paralleled by the growth and diversity of community-university engagement across Canada. New social-finance instruments can be used to expand affordable housing, social infrastructure, renewable energy, and Aboriginal economic development. This article suggests that UCE units consider combining professional development programs with research and incubation partnerships in this emerging area. Participants in such activities could include university administrators, fund trustees, investment professionals, union leaders, civic leaders, and community activists.

How University Projects Produce Development Results: Lessons from 20 Years of Canada-China Cooperation in Higher Education

ABSTRACT While aid agencies may remain sceptical about university projects, a review of 20 years of Canada-China higher education cooperation demonstrates that, when they are successful higher-education interventions can produce durable and far-reaching results. The review highlights the “knowledge advantage” of university cooperation, including the inherent results multipliers of teaching and research, and the multi-generational nature of project participants. CIDA and Canadian universities should move from a transactional to a strategic relationship. Engaging a new generation of faculty and students, renovating centres of expertise and building knowledge networks are important tasks for the future.

Participatory impact assessment for poverty alleviation: Opportunities for communities and development agencies

In an increasingly globalized world, participatory impact assessment (PIA) can serve as a useful tool to help communities take charge of their affairs. Development agencies can work with communities to use PIA to measure and promote substantial, sustainable gains by the poor in terms of money and power. Recent work on impact indicators at the micro- (household and community), meso- (institutional), and macro- (policy) levels—especially in the areas of microenterprise, local economic development, gender and development, human rights, and institutional partnerships—can be consolidated and extended through PIA. PIA can also be used to strengthen methods that place full control, or at least co-management authority, in the hands of citizens to evaluate development interventions. An international network on PIA should be established to facilitate exchanges on, and the spread of, this approach.

Community Innovation through Entrepreneurship: Grantmaking in Canadian Community Economic Development

This paper examines the relationships among community innovation, entrepreneurship, knowledge, and grantmaking in the field of community economic development. The paper assesses the experience of the Community Economic Development Technical Assistance Program (CEDTAP), a bilingual grantmaker operating in rural and urban Canada, in combining small-grant funding with knowledge management methods to support community innovation. The CEDTAP experience illustrates how the multiple roles played by individual entrepreneurs and the social entrepreneurship of the local CED organization combine to drive the innovation process. Mature CED organizations are found to pursue innovation in order to achieve performance gains to better achieve their mission. While information technology is of some interest to these groups, they are increasingly active in applying new production technologies to strengthen their business enterprises. The CEDTAP experience highlights the potential of grantmakers to enhance their impact and reach through such knowledge-management tools as electronic portals, action-research and mutual learning within thematic clusters of grantee projects. The paper calls for practitioners and scholars to better understand the nature of, and interrelationships among, community innovation, entrepreneurship, knowledge and grantmaking in community economic development.

Can Technology Clusters Deliver Sustainable Livelihoods? Constructing a Role for Community Economic Development

The sustainability of technology clusters has becomequestionable as a result of recent declines in technology relatedjobs.This research suggests that community economic development (CED)strategies can aid in sustaining and stabilizing technology sector jobs andmarkets.Focusing on Canadas National Capital Region (NCR), the limitsand advantages of utilizing CED strategies in addition to government andbusiness strategies that encourage cluster growth is explored. Past research regarding the development and growth of technology clusters,as well as limitations associated with these clusters, is presented.Theperformance of the NCR is discussed, highlighting areas of both positive andnegative growth.The role of CED is then analyzed, focusing on some of theadvantages and disadvantages of this program and its prevalence among thescience and technology industry.CED performs the followingfiveroles among technology clusters: (1) bridging the digital divide; (2)facilitating knowledge workers to manage technology-sector volatility; (3)mobilizing organizational resources that promote community development amonglow-income people; (4) producing multi-sector leadership structures; and (5)encouraging the development of community-owned science and technologyenterprises. CED is vital for technology-cluster growth.Current strategies beingused in Ottawa (restructuring the governance of economic-development and thescale of training) are considered, as are predictions regarding the future ofCanadian technology clusters. (AKP)