Methodology

At Impact Track, we believe that social impact measurement must be both robust and useful for action. A methodology that is too complex often remains theoretical. Conversely, an approach that is too simplified weakens the credibility of the results. We have therefore developed a methodology that combines scientific rigor and operational applicability. Since 2019, this approach has been implemented in: • Over 700 projects, • 40+ funder portfolios, • 15 intervention areas. Our methodology evolves continuously thanks to: • Field feedback, • Advances in research, • Exchanges with funders and public decision-makers. It is deployed through a combination of: • Methodological consulting, • Action-training, • A SaaS impact management platform. Our objective is to help organizations manage their impact over the long term and transform impact measurement into a tool for learning, decision-making, and social transformation.

There is no single method for measuring social impact. The relevance of an approach always depends on several factors : • The objectives of the process (internal management, accountability, advocacy, decision support), • The capacities of the organization (time, skills, budget), • The level of analysis (project, organization, portfolio, or public policy). Needs also differ according to the type of actor: • An organization working directly with beneficiaries will primarily seek to understand the changes experienced by the people supported. • A funder will rather wish to compare the supported projects and guide its funding. • A public actor will seek to analyze global effects to inform public policies. Our role consists of finding the right level of rigor and feasibility, so that impact assessment becomes a tool actually used to manage action.

In France, social impact was defined by the Higher Council for the Social and Solidarity Economy (CSESS) in 2011 as "the set of consequences […] of an organization's activities both on its stakeholders […] and on society in general." For Impact Track, as for the CSESS, the social impact of social and solidarity economy (SSE) activities designates a response to social needs and is therefore intentional, differing from the OECD definition which describes impact as "intended or unintended."

The evaluation scope determines the boundaries of the analysis: • Which activities are studied, • Which stakeholders are taken into account, • Over which period or territory the changes are observed. This step is essential to guarantee the relevance of the process. According to the principles of SROI (Social Return on Investment), it is not about being exhaustive, but about focusing on the effects that are truly significant for the stakeholders. A relevant evaluation scope must also be: • Consistent with the objectives of the process, • Proportionate to the available means, • Realistic for the teams. A clear scope is the condition for producing a useful, credible, and sustainable impact measurement.

After analyzing the main international impact measurement guides (EVPA, Impact Management Project, SROI, Harvard, etc.), Impact Track has structured an evaluation process into five major steps. To this, we add a scoping phase upstream which allows for defining the evaluation scope mentioned earlier. 1. Identify Stakeholders : Mapping, needs analysis, or exploratory interviews. 2. Describe Expected Changes: Formalize the Theory of Change 3. Define and Quantify Impact: Define indicators and evaluation methods (sectoral indicators, pre/post surveys, comparative methods). 4. Collect Data: Surveys, qualitative interviews, administrative data, focus groups. 5. Analyze and Manage Impact : Dashboards, impact analyses (avoided costs, SROI), reporting.

The evaluation framework is the heart of any impact measurement process, comprising: • The Theory of Change, • The associated indicators, • The methods of data collection. A good framework must respect three key principles: • Utility: It must produce concrete insights to improve action. • Representativeness: It must reflect the reality of effects on the ground. • Practicability: It must be applicable by the teams while guaranteeing data quality. At Impact Track, we built sectoral evaluation frameworks collectively with actors.

The Theory of Change describes how an organization intends to contribute to social change. It explicits the causal links between: • Activities (what we do), • Outcomes (short-term changes), • Impacts (lasting and significant changes). At Impact Track, the Theory of Change is used as: • A strategic clarification tool, • A support for dialogue between stakeholders, • A methodological basis for defining the scope of the process and for interpreting results.

Impact measurement relies on various types of indicators, which it is essential to distinguish. • Output Indicators: What is directly produced (e.g., number of people supported, number of workshops held). • Outcome Indicators: Observed short or medium-term changes (e.g., percentage of beneficiaries who accessed a job, improvement in digital skills). • Impact Indicators: The portion of change truly attributable to the intervention, all other things being equal (e.g., reduction in non-take-up of rights attributable to the support provided). Our approach combines objective and subjective indicators, while limiting their number to prioritize measures that are truly useful for management and decision-making.

Some social challenges cannot be solved by an isolated actor. They require systemic transformations: evolution of practices, norms, and public policies. Measuring systemic impact involves: • Moving beyond project-based logic, • Analyzing interactions between actors, • Documenting long-term effects on ecosystems. When necessary, our work is based on approaches to systemic change, collective impact, and collective learning.

Collective impact measurement aims to analyze the collective contribution of a group of actors to the same social issue(e.g., digital inclusion, aging well, child protection). It allows for: • Reducing costs of impact measurement for organizations, • Improving methodological robustness, • Producing data useful for managing public policies, • Objectifying the social value of a sector. Impact Track supports: • The co-construction of sectoral frameworks, • Deployment among actors, • Analysis of aggregated data, • Facilitating a collective learning dynamic. This approach is currently mobilized by foundations, networks, local authorities, and public administrations.