Family by Family is creating change – the independent evaluation tells us so! You can read the evaluation, and watch the new documentary – as we celebrate it’s first full year in start-up!
2 months, 6 weavers, 12 recruitment experiences, 7 potential networks, and 3 meet & chats later – and we’ve got a long way to go to answer the questions: How do we actually prompt change for friends & families in caring situations? And how do we engage people in that change process? There’s much more to prototype…
The question that never goes away: Are we increasing inequality?
What happens when you meet with an applied academic, realist evaluator, business analyst, and social return on investment consultant?
A trip to Port Arthur to see the ‘separate’ prison made me wonder whether our family project rightly balances the interests of our different user groups. This week, we started to shift the balance.
We’re in week 3 of the Family by Family prototype and are often asked: How will we measure success? There’s lots of different ways, but we’re particularly interested in how to capture changes in the behaviours families deem important. We’re now on iteration 5 of a measurement tool, and this week, will work on iteration 6!
Our first family project paper is ready for public consumption and feedback. Let us know what you think!
We’ve been busy writing, revising, and visualising our report of the first phase of the Family Thriving Project (we’re on iteration 11 so far!) and trying some new ways to enable practitioners and policymakers to learn and experiment with us. One of our biggest learnings has been about how to define and measure family thriving.
Three new-ish publications argue that we should fund public services and social programs based on outcomes, not outputs. We agree, but look at the missing link between outcomes and outputs: people’s behavior.
Should we just hold the state accountable for providing a base level of services, given the outcomes of those services depend on what people do? We respond to a blog post by the RSA’s Matthew Taylor on the topic, suggesting that while government and people should be held jointly accountable for outcomes, how we define outcomes matters.
We live in the information age, but what does all the information really tell us? How can we design measures that actually capture useful information, and more importantly, can gauge social impact? We share version 1.0 of our principles for good measurement. Good measures are (1) useful, (2) actionable, (3) purposeful, (4) ecological, and (5) positive.
A new publication looks at the role experimentation can play in addressing societal challenges, but focuses more on structures and processes than people.
Is feeling connected, valued and a part of something much bigger than ourselves the key to a good, happy life?
Are certain cultures unable to change? David Brooks thinks so. Writing about what good could come from the human catastrophe still unfolding in Haiti, Brooks sees space for a counterculture to take hold. He argues Haiti’s development has been hampered by its ‘change-resistant’ culture including ‘the influence of the voodoo religion’ ‘high levels of social [...]
We use logic models from the start to end of projects to help us understand and shape how social change happens.
Wired’s attempt to solve a pressing social problem through design thinking actually shows the limits of design thinking.
People in Latin countries are happier than their Western counterparts, in part, because of strong social relationships. We should look at the quality of relationships as a key policy outcome, and not just the existence of relationships, be it to an employer or spouse.