The Salvation Army 2014 USA Salvation Army Conference for Social Work and Emergency Disaster Services 25 to 28 March 2014, Orlando, Florida GLOBAL TRACK SESSION 2C
“How do we measure the impact of our work?” Commissioner Gerrit Marseille International Secretary for Programme Resources International Headquarters This paper will discuss the One Army Impact Initiative, which started in January, to answer this important question: “How do we measure the impact of our work?” The need to improve the description of the impact of our programmes, was brought to our attention by some of the development offices in supporting (donor) territories, in response to demands from their donors for more evidence about the results of Salvation Army community development projects around the world. We realized however that almost all territories are struggling with the same issue. But it is not just for our donors that we need to answer this question. We should all desire to know what kind of change and transformation are we aiming for in our work and whether we are achieving it ; whether it is funded by a donor or not. We need evidence as a testimony to the redeeming grace of God and a learning point to guide our future work. I think the title – One Army Impact Project – is a problem. It can be misunderstood in all the elements of the title. In this paper I will show you why this is so; highlight the challenges and potentiality of this project; and hopefully encourage you to help us to make this initiative a success. Let’s start with “One Army” and be honest. We are not one Army, not by a long shot. There are enormous variations in Salvation Army ministry across territories and across the work in a territory. Our Army world is marked by its diversity as pictures taken around the world quickly reveal. However we want to be united, and what is more important we want our work to be holistic in its approach: “The whole gospel for the whole person for the whole world”. 1
The need for an integrated mission focus has been recognised since the 1980s and it is still a matter of a lively internal discussion. General Bond in her vision statement has offered us a new way to talk about this: “We are One Army with One Mission and One Message”. This is still a vision and not the reality everywhere but this vision clearly states where we want to be. We may be diverse in our ways of working but I think we are more together in our view on our One Mission. We should certainly be united around our One Message. My first observation is that we need to have solid theological foundations for our work. Theological reflection as exercised by practical theologians is no longer a luxury for our Army. It is a necessity. The One Army Impact Project will seek to identify an appropriate approach to Impact Assessment, which includes our notion of a holistic ministry, an integral mission, for our faith based organization, taken across all our activities. This understanding will then have to be applied to the particular circumstances and parameters of all our mission initiatives. The next word in the title is “Impact”. An assessment of past evaluations of projects indicates this is a weak point in our system. In my experience working in Salvation Army programmes in Africa and Europe for more than 30 years and with my overview of worldwide Army programme for nearly three years, I conclude we tended to focus on what activities we do and what they cost. Sometimes we try to measure the outputs. We rarely take the time to examine outcomes and impact. In our evaluations we often have not answered the questions about the bigger picture and the larger context. Too often we say: “Well we have done our bit and it is now out of our hands, we must leave it to the Lord.” This is understandable but not good enough. Is there any way to describe what the Lord is doing? What is the impact/change the Gospel message affects? What reason do we have to believe that we were doing what needed to be done? Impact assessment deliberately casts a net wider around our action and tries to make sense of the changes that become visible through our activities. I have found the following diagram to be the most helpful illustration of what Impact looks like:
2
But asking questions about our influence in a wider circle of influence immediately raises the question: How much can we reasonably attribute to our action? Can we make any claims to impact at the macro level? Changes in society are influenced by many other factors social, economic and political that easily become more crucial parameters of change in any given environment. The particular difficulty with impact assessment in relation to social programmes is that they operate in complex environments where it is not easy to attribute the impact to the influence of any particular programme. The complexity of society is caused by the interaction of social economic and political factors. This difficulty has been recognised by the evaluation theorists and has in fact led to a particular type of impact assessment approaches that could be grouped under the heading theory-oriented. When we define our spiritual mission as an integral holistic mission – the whole gospel for the whole person for the whole world – we enter even deeper waters. The spiritual impact of our work is particularly difficult to gauge. Let me give an example. Many Christmas movies feature a Salvation Army band playing in the street at Christmas to underline the need for a charitable spirit in that season. However we cannot take the credit for any increase across the general population in charitable spirit in the month of December. We may contribute to feelings of goodwill but we cannot claim all the impact. The question remains: is there way to measure the impact of our corps band in our town? 3
Sometimes the impact of our action will only be visible on a long term. This calls for longitudinal evaluations over let’s say a decade or a generation. This is more the realm of the historian. In project work we do not have time to wait that long. Baseline studies and reliable indicators of change are very important in this context. The problem is often that we only have a poor description of the wider context before we began our activity and are unable draw firm conclusions based on limited data. We need more and a different kind of data for this work. Central to this issue is a desire not to focus solely on measuring the number of activities or the number of people involved or the amount of money spent on programmes. Although these are important, the focus needs to be on the outcomes of the programmes and their long-term impact on people, families, communities and the structures of society Quoting statistics often invokes a sense of reliability. Measuring numbers, creates the impression of objectivity, the cold facts speak for themselves. But statistics have their limitations and some matters cannot be captured in sheer numbers. It has been noted that the Annual Statistics Report published in The Salvation Army Year Book is unreliable. The variations seen from year to year suggest the issue is more complex than merely an unreliable method of counting. There is a programme definition issue which is not easily solved within such a diverse organisation. Steps are being undertaken to remedy the statistical reports, but measure the impact still eludes us. For people of faith ‘counting our strength’ has a spiritual implication. There is the story about King David, In 2 Samuel 24 who towards the end of his reign, said: “Go number Israel.” This was a dubious command. The spirit of vainglory in numbers had taken possession of the people and the king, and there was a tendency to trust in numbers and forget God. (Morgan) So Joab, David’s General, objects: “Why then does my Lord desire this thing?” The motive is clearly very important. If we are acting out of a spirit of vainglory or if the motive is pride then it is clearly wrong. Do we need to boast about our strength because “the donors want to know exactly what their dollar, pound or Euro is doing?” Why do they want to know? Do we need to educate the donor that it is not always the way of the Kingdom to measure to the last digit? We need another approach to capture change: more descriptive of a qualitative nature, expressed in a narrative, taken beyond the anecdotal. We need to get our stories right, so they are representative and indicative of the change that is taking place within our ministries. 4
Measurement and evaluation still carry the stigma of judgment. This is even worse if it is forced upon us, done by an outsider. No one likes very much to be weighed and measured in our actions. The outside evaluator may portray a sense of objectivity, but in his evaluating criteria he will have to deal with his own biases. Theory-based assessments offer different compelling reason to assess impact: that is to learn and to steer our actions, and they include the end-users of our programme. This goes beyond management. As Peter Drucker wrote: “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.”1 I think impact assessment is about doing the right things. It is not a management issue but it is about leadership and strategy. Fundamentally, it is about learning to be better stewards of the resources God has entrusted to us. In the One Army Impact Project we believe measurement is a key characteristic of a learning organisation. Learning is a discipline we should all engage in for our own sake. Knowing why we are doing things, what we aim for and how we should improve doing them. “Measurement as learning” is what this engagement is all about. Finally, the last word: the One Army Impact Project. The problem is it suggests we are going to do something new. Here we go again; another new buzz word; another a new trend. This is not what this initiative is about. We do not want to change the direction. We just want to add an element to it that we have which we have found is missing. We are in fact intentionally mindful of what we have learned as an Army over the past decades, and want to be building on the foundations of the lessons we have learnt. Participatory Approaches; Community Counselling; Integrated Mission; Faith Based Facilitation – these have all been stepping stones for this next stage. With these critical reflections in mind, we have designed this project with three phases. The first stage of our engagement is the formulation of a framework that collects our thoughts on impact assessment in the context of our faith-based mission. Put simply : we want to explore what impact measurement means in the context of an Integral Christian ministry so that people of faith may to be able to capture the essence of the impact of their efforts in a language that can be easily understood 1 Peter F. Drucker, Essential Drucker: Management, the Individual and Society 5
We will have to define what we mean by the different terms we are using. We are not the first to explore the subject of evaluation. A large number of approaches and theories are available in the social sciences, but we must additionally take into account the complexity of our integral mission. We will need to distinguish between the theories and methods, and decide which approach would be the most valid for us and how does this approach would need to be adapted to make it fit for our purpose. It will be important to state how we think measurement and evaluation relate to our mission purposes theologically. In Lamentations 3:40, God’s people are instructed to test and examine their ways, to take a good look at what they are doing and re-order their lives under God. General John Gowans often said: “We must continually review what we are doing and why we are doing it” in order to remain faithful practitioners in the world. With this Biblical mandate and Salvation Army tradition in mind, we are approaching the One Army Impact Project. The work is similar to that done in developing the Faith-Based Facilitation Process and Toolbox. The FBF process is based on the work of David Kolb on experiential learning but adapted by practical theologians into the “pastoral cycle”. They have introduced the element of theological reflection in the process. This has been further adapted for our own use in the faith-based facilitated reflection process that we call FBF A similar exercise lies ahead of us in the field of evaluation. Secondly, based on the developed framework we need a simple tool that can be used in the field. We will not be able reach the impact level if we bypass the outcome. An outcome based tool that sights towards a description of the impact will be a stepping stone for impact assessments. This is already a considerable step forward We envisage the actual impact assessment to be a facilitated collaborative learning process undertaken in partnership between implementers and support offices This tool will be promoted by IHQ for use across the Army for years to come. We are going to start by focusing on two sectors: health and work (livelihoods and income generating activities). Obviously many more applications of the unified framework are needed and we hope colleagues will find ways to apply the framework in their sectors and work collaboratively in this task. We want to emphasise the learning element of this exercise by bringing together practitioners on the Internet. We hope to create virtual communities of practice around the world – permanent online communities where programme implementers and support 6
offices can exchange experiences and ideas. We are making use of the Connections platform that is available to all Lotus Notes users. The third phase will be a plan to implement these tools in the coming years through seminars and one on one project support. We are still in the first phase of our project and would like to refer to the fact sheet that is available about our preliminary findings in the process and would like to encourage all to take part in the discussions on our Connections forum. To conclude, let me return to the question: “How do we assess the impact of our work?” Well, we are working on the answer! In this paper, I have shown the challenges of the task, and I hope the need for the One Army Impact Project, I am inviting you to help us be more faithful as we together seek to understand the impact we are making in Christ’s name.
A response by G Benjamin Dhaya India South Eastern Territory I thank Commissioner Marseille for his paper and agree it is very important that we plan in the beginning of the project what kind of deeper changes and transformations that we are aiming to achieve. Most of the time the priority was given in implementing the activities and looking for outputs without looking for evidence based and sustainable changes and transformation. External evaluators are not able to identify the real impact because of lack of time and information. The best people to measure the impact of an activity are those who are most closely involved – the people engaged daily in the programme. It is also true that on many occasions during impact assessment importance was not given to gauge spiritual impact. It is important to measure deeper change and transformation that has happened in the lives and livelihoods of the people. The change and transformation should be long term, evidence based and sustainable. It is an opportunity for the whole Salvation Army to move from assessing the activities and outputs to assess the effectiveness of our work. Changes happen and we need more accountability based on reliable evidence. Impact measurement also gives an opportunity for effective learning. It can be a complete qualitative and quantitative assessment of the relationships and identify changes in the lives of individuals and communities as a result of a particular intervention. During impact assessment it is vital to involve different stake holders in terms of ownership and sustainability. Also it is important to have an emphasis on the relationship. But many 7
occasions it will be only social, economic and political. The spiritual impact “transformation and relationship with God� should be assessed which is difficult to assess but always setting of indicators based on mission statement could be helpful. Outputs
Efforts taken and intermediate results generated by programme
Out comes Impact
Effectiveness of the activity implemented Change & Transformation from the original situation
8
The Salvation Army 2014 USA Salvation Army Conference for Social Work and Emergency Disaster Services 25 to 28 March 2014, Orlando, Florida GLOBAL TRACK SESSION 2C
“How do we measure the impact of our work?” Lt. Colonel James Nauta USA Central Territory Introduction In proposing the creation of a Taskforce on Impact Evaluation, The Salvation Army’s International Programme Resources Department2 has posed the following questions: • • • • •
How do we promote best practices in countries where normative influence is weak and we are more or less left to our own devises? How do we effectively build the capacity of our staff, officers and employees to be faithful to and effective in mission? How do we evaluate and measure the impact of our activities? How do we approach programme assessment in a holistic way in the light of our integrated mission? How are we being faithful to our One Army Mission focus in this respect?
This paper — presented as part of the global track in connection with the March 2014 USA Salvation Army Conference for Social Work and Emergency Disaster Services convened in Orlando, Florida — will share examples of current evaluation and impact measurement methods for possible application in a variety of Salvation Army settings. The Army’s Historic Approach to measuring ministry impact William Booth founded The Salvation Army in 1865 to evangelize to the unchurched poor. It is a well-documented fact that the founder quickly realized that people preoccupied with survival needs for food and shelter were unable to focus on eternal matters, and he understood the necessity of meeting their temporal as well as spiritual needs. The founder’s son and second General of The Salvation Army, Bramwell Booth, perhaps summarized our integrated mission and approach best by saying “It is incumbent upon the Army to imitate its Master, and go about doing good to the bodies as well as to the souls of men, and to do so in an effective and therefore systematic way.” 3 Over the years this has been the hallmark of the Salvation Army’s holistic ministry.
2 Gerrit Marseille, One Army, How Do We Measure Its Impact, January 2013 3 Bramwell Booth, Echoes and Memories, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1925)
9
Building on this solid foundation, the Army has maintained a spirit of humility and has recognized that any positive impact of our ministry is the result of God’s work and not our organizational efforts. When a public relations firm introduced the “Doing The Most Good” emphasis in the USA, many thought this to be a boastful departure from the Army’s more humble roots. This humble approach to serving exemplifies the spirit of Christ as expressed in Scripture 4 and is of upmost importance, for after all is said and done the final verdict of the impact of our ministry will come from our Lord. Donor Accountability The Salvation Army has a long history of effective stewardship in delivering Christian programs and services. For over a century the Army has been recognized as one of the most respected organizations in the world. Over the years, we have adopted professional practices and strong internal financial audit systems, resulting in solid public trust. Indeed, we have been pretty successful in developing effective programs and sharing countless stories of transformation as a result of our programming and community work. So, too, the Army has been reasonably effective in quantifying our activities through well-developed statistical reporting procedures, but we have not been very good at measuring the impact of our ministry except in areas where funders have specifically required more sophisticated evaluation. More often than not we have had a tendency to emphasize activities and outputs rather than outcomes. Yet, as the International Programme Resources Department has rightly noted, measuring the impact or specific outcomes of our programs and services is increasingly demanded by external donors and regulatory authorities. In response to these requirements the International Programme Resources Consultancy Group has concluded that there is a need for a unified approach to measuring ministry impact and efforts are underway to identify common tools and processes for impact measurement.5
Measuring Impact While Maintaining Mission Alignment The Salvation Army’s “Vision for Caring” planning guide 6, approved by the USA Commissioners’ Conference in 1998, emphasizes that quality services must be mission-based, comply with high standards, utilize competent and committed personnel, and provide for integrated ministry. 4 “Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You” Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You? And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, as much as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’”, The Holy Bible NKJV, Matthew 25: 37-40 5 Gerrit Marseille, One Army, How Do We Measure Its Impact, January 2013 6 “Vision for Caring”, USA Commissioners’ Conference, 1998
10
The vision guide identifies the following “guiding principles” which may provide a useful framework for establishing a solid foundation to help measure the impact of the Army’s ministry while maintaining mission alignment. The best programs must include: • • • • • • • •
Planned Program Development Community Involvement Finances Sufficient to Provide Services Physical Facilities and Equipment Appropriate for the Program Personnel Qualified to Perform Tasks Records that Report Program Services and Aid in Management Decisions Periodic Evaluation for Quality Control An Informed Public to Provide Future Funding
Examples of Current Evaluation/Measurement Approaches
Program Evaluation Over the years, The Salvation Army has successfully utilized a program review process where representatives of the supervising headquarters have used a variety of approaches (most often quantitative analysis) to assess programs and services. Early in 2000, the Army in the USA developed national standards for social services and more recently national standards for the new Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers have been approved, against which programs are evaluated. Accompanying these standards is a self-study tool designed for use of staff in assessing compliance and building capacity for quality programs. Evaluations have sought to ensure required levels of performance within sound operating conditions; provide accountability to The Salvation Army mission, the expectations of funders, ourselves, and those we serve; promote effective program services in a safe, clean, healthy, comfortable, supportive and nurturing environment; identify high risk/critical issues that may represent a potential liability for The Salvation Army; and help improve the linkage, connectivity and teamwork with headquarters. While not measuring ministry impact per se, the supposition is that maximum impact will result from quality programs and services. Walk-Throughs Walk-Throughs provide a structured learning process to assist program leadership and staff in strengthening the ongoing work and culture of a program and are never stand-alone events used to “showcase” or “evaluate” the work of staff. To be effective, this process needs to be part of the regular routine of a program — not a special event. The feedback is for program improvement — not for evaluation of individual staff or the program as a whole. This approach is intended to result in concrete feedback to staff coupled with reflection, discussion and commitment to specific actions that will enhance and sustain the 11
richness of the program. The process may be completed by program leaders, staff and volunteers, or could be expanded to others who are affiliated with the program. Programs using the Walk-Through learning process believe that an active, self-study approach to professional growth and program improvement will produce results that are sustained over time. Walk-Throughs provide an ongoing means of engaging program staff in dialogue and reflection on their own practices and the program goals as a whole. The learning is grounded in the real experience of program leaders and can assist in aligning performance within an activity area as well as across a variety of activities. It provides a specific reason for the program leaders to be viewing activities and encourages their role as coach and support to help staff improve performance. The process creates a mutual ground for discussing program activities and practice. With Walk-Throughs, like Program Evaluations, impact is inferred as a result of quality programs and services. Outcome Evaluations Funders are increasingly requiring Outcome Evaluations as an evidence-based method of measuring the impact of program services. Outcome evaluation measures how program participants have benefited/changed through participating in program services. This evaluation/measurement approach includes ongoing monitoring as well as a more formal review/analysis of results of program participation. It includes feedback on program services from members/participants on a regular basis. Changes to be measured may include knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors, motivation, decisions and conditions. Outcome evaluation assesses the extent to which a program service is successful in achieving its desired essential goals, objectives and desired outcomes. Effective Outcome Evaluation typically uses a logic model that clearly identifies program inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes and indicators. A recent example of the use of Outcome Evaluations as a method of measuring the impact of program services is the development of a Fit Kids Project for new Ray & Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers in the USA. The “Kroc Fit Kids Project” is a comprehensive endeavor which approaches health and wellness from a holistic perspective using the programs and services provided by Kroc Centers. In order for a person to live a vital and healthy life, they must be healthy or “fit” in spirit, mind, and body. The Salvation Army has long been committed to this philosophy. This same philosophy has been highlighted by the World Health Organization which defines Health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The “Kroc Fit Kids Project,” while addressing a specific focus, will nevertheless include comprehensive programming that helps build up participants in each of these critical areas. This project will assess changes in physical activity and dietary patterns using a logic model. Please see Appendix A for an example of specific measurement factors used for evaluation. Surveys
12
Another evidence-based method of measuring the impact of program services includes surveying of participants, family members, community constituents and staff. In 2010 The Salvation Army in the USA launched a National Youth Asset Development Initiative (YADI) in partnership with Search Institute, authors of the 40 Developmental Assets®, which are cited as necessary building blocks for healthy development of young people. The Youth Asset Development Initiative, beginning in Kroc Centers throughout the country, embodies Joan Kroc’s emphasis on tapping youths’ potential by providing opportunities for them to nurture the gifts God has given them, for the betterment of others as well as themselves. The Army is keenly aware of the magnitude of Joan Kroc’s gift, and of the responsibility for wise use of the gift for Kroc Centers. An important component of the YADI endeavor includes the use of a survey known as Developmental Assets & Life Experiences Profile (DALEP) specifically designed for The Salvation Army. Staff and Adult feedback questionaires have also been developed by Search Institute and used in this initiative. This very significant evidence-based project, beginning in Kroc Centers, is being recognized as an important resource in documenting positive outcomes in service to youth and families throughout The Salvation Army. The initiative — now in phase 3 — is viewed as an early step in accountability for programming focused on positive youth development as an outcome of all programs, rather than merely delivering quality programs. Please see Appendix B for more detailed information describing Search Institute’s research work including the DALEP Survey used in YADI. Economic Impact Studies In measuring the impact of our program services, consideration might be given to use of an economic impact study. In yet another opportunity stemming from the new Ray and Joan Kroc Corps Community Centers in the USA, at the time of this writing the Army is exploring the development of a national economic impact study. We are working with a group called Partners for Sacred Places, a non-profit organization dedicated to the sound stewardship and active community use of sacred places across America. Backed by the reputations of Partners for Sacred Places and the University of Pennsylvania, the proposed study will provide the Salvation Army with hard data – quantitative proof of the value and impact of the Kroc Centers. The study report will also outline strategies for weaving this data into a compelling case statement for the Kroc Centers, one that balances statistics with stories of the lives they represent. Additionally, the report will include analysis and recommendations for how Kroc Centers can increase their value and return on investment by leveraging existing resources in new ways. Working closely with the Kroc Center of Philadelphia, Partners for Sacred Places has developed a customized research methodology to ensure that the study fully captures the broad spectrum and unique combination of services provided at and through the centers. In contrast to other existing economic valuation methodologies, Partners methodology addresses both of the core functions of the Kroc Center – community center and congregation. Study analysis will include the following components: 13
• • • • • •
Direct Spending Schools and Day Cares Open Spaces Magnet Effect Individual Impact Invisible Safety Net
Building Capacity for Mission Effectiveness This paper is presented with the hope that it may contribute in some small way to a clearer view of evaluation and impact measurement. Perhaps the examples of current approaches measuring impact which have been shared will result in the further development of useful evaluation tools to help the Army assess its mission effectiveness. Each of the foregoing examples of current evaluation/measurement approaches includes an emphasis on self-regulation or assessment designed to build capacity among staff to target specific improvement goals and concrete action steps. Of course, self-regulation and assessment is critically important because we may be the most important source of information about our own performance; no one knows the work, the thought behind it, and personal goals better than ourselves.7 Each evaluation/measurement approach also includes assessment in a holistic manner consistent with the Army’s integrated mission. To further encourage building capacity for mission effectiveness, the development of “learning hubs” designed to test, store and share knowledge of new innovations in evaluation/measurement approaches seems to be promising and should be pursued by The Salvation Army. Appendix A The Salvation Army Kroc Fit Kids Project Logic Model: Measuring Program Impact
RESOURCES Organizational History and Experience
ACTIVITIES Monthly School Assemblies
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
Kids will participate in fitness-focused assemblies at
Increased physical fitness test scores
INDICATORS 50% of Participants demonstrate an increased ability to perform 2 or more
7 Wilson, P. F., & Pearson, R. D. (1995). Performance-based assessments: External, internal, and selfassessment tools for total quality management. Milwaukee, WI: ASQC Quality Press.
14
RESOURCES
Qualified & Experienced Staffing Resources
World-Class Kroc Center Facilities --Sports & Recreation --Fitness --Arts & Education
Kroc Centers location in underserved areas with member scholarships
Partnerships and Collaborations
ACTIVITIES Regular DeskSide Physical Activities
Monthly Guided Fitness-Focused Kroc Center Field Trips
Monthly Family Fun Nights to include an interactive activity, educational component and healthy snack
Drop-in fitness/athletic activities afterschool and on weekends, including prizes for frequent users
--Public Schools --Search Institute
Stamp Cards given to kids
OUTPUTS schools led by trained Kroc Center fitness staff 30 minutes per month
Kids will participate in ten minute desk-side physical activities led by their classroom teacher five days per week
Kids will participate in Guided FitnessFocused Kroc Center Field Trips one-hour per month
Kids/parents will participate in FREE Family Fun Nights 1.5
OUTCOMES
INDICATORS tasks over baseline8
Increased levels of consistent physical activity --within required class curriculum
The number of minutes of physical activity kids engage in each month will increase by an average of 150 minutes 7
--outside class
Maintained or improved Body Mass Index (BMI)
Increased consumption of regular fresh fruits and vegetables
Reduced total daily “screen time”
60% of kids will show maintained or improved Body Mass Index (BMI)
50% of kid’s diets will show increase in regular fresh fruits & vegetables9
45% of participants will reduce total screen time by at least 1 hour per
8As measured by the administration of four key elements of the State Physical Fitness Test (one mile run, curl ups, pushups, shoulder stretch)
9 As measured by Pre/Post Lifestyle Questionnaires and Kroc Fit Kids Healthy Lifestyle Journals
15
RESOURCES
ACTIVITIES
Program Resources --The Forty Developmental Assets --Organ Wise Guys Desk-Side Curriculum
allowing participation in Kroc Center after-school and weekend drop-in sports/fitness activities
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
hours per month
Kids/parents will access Kroc Center Facilities and Professional Staff
INDICATORS day5
Increased and maintained healthy living behaviors
60% of families improve healthy living scores on the Family Nutrition & Physical Activity Screening (FNPA)
Appendix B The Salvation Army/Search Institute Youth Asset Development Initiative The Developmental Assets & Life Experiences Profile (DALEP) Search Institute is an independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to provide catalytic leadership, breakthrough knowledge, and innovative resources to advance the health of children, families, and communities. To accomplish this mission, Search Institute conducts research, develops publications and practical tools, and provides training and technical assistance. The Institute collaborates with others to promote long-term organizational and cultural change that supports the healthy development of all children and adolescents
Developmental Assets represent the positive relationships, opportunities, skills and values that promote the positive development of all children and adolescents. The Developmental Assets framework grew out of Search Institute’s research over the past decade. The theoretical underpinnings of the framework reside in the research pertaining to risk and resiliency, prevention, and health promotion. Search Institute’s Developmental Assets Profile (DAP) was developed in 2004. It is a 58-item survey (plus a handful of demographic questions) for 6 th-12th graders that measures eight principal asset categories: support, empowerment, boundaries and expectations, constructive use of time, commitment to learning, positive values, social competencies, and positive identity. The items can also be re-grouped to reflect youths’ asset experience in several environmental contexts: personal, 16
social, family, school, and community. The survey was designed to be usable both for individual youth, for clinical purposes, and as an aggregate tool for use with groups of young people. It also was expressly intended to be used in pre-post, change-over-time, and program evaluation settings. For these purposes, a 3-month minimum time between survey administrations is required. The Developmental Assets & Life Experiences Profile (DALEP) used in the Salvation Army Youth Asset Development Initiative is comprised of the original 58-item DAP, with items slightly adapted for 4 th6th graders, and additional measures of five key outcomes identified by Salvation Army national and territorial leaders: school success, hopeful purpose, positive emotions, citizenship/civic engagement, and avoiding violence.
A response by Major Angeline Kapere Zimbabwe Territory I thank Colonel Nauta for his paper. I understand impact to be the strong, powerful or dramatic effect that something /someone has on the other. So what has The Salvation Army’s historic approach been to measuring Impact? It is true that doing good to the body as well as the soul had a powerful and strong effect on people during the ministry of William, Catherine and Bramwell Booth. For many years The Salvation Army imitating our master Jesus, through its holistic approach brought a strong and powerful effect on people. Jesus demonstrated that for an individual to be able to focus on eternal matters, basic survival needs are to be taken care of first (see Mark 6 verse 30 -44). Abraham Maslow in his hierarchy of needs also highlighted that basic needs have to be satisfied first before moving to higher needs.
The positive Impact of our ministry is a result of God’s work not our organizational effort. It is true that our God is a God of miracles. Can the impact of our ministry be felt without the effort of the organization? I feel there is need for the organization to work hard, put more effort in its ministry so that there is a positive impact. Therefore this positive impact is both Gods effort and also organisational effort. God will take away what he has given us if we don’t work hard. (see Matthew 25 verse 14 – 30) Donor accountability: Being good stewards of Christian programs has made the Salvation Army to be respected, trusted and recognized. This is a positive impact and as an Army we should continue to build this trust. In most donor funded programs and activities impact of our work is measured as required or requested by the donor. 17