Chapter 5: How to measure impact of a sponsorship program and influence change in the system

Below are the five dimensions of impact, with examples relevant to sponsorship.

1. What is the intended outcome?
   • Improved career mobility, progression, and pathways for sponsees
   • Increased understanding of barriers to progression for sponsors
   • Increased pool of CALD talent ready for promotion or other mobility
2. Who experiences it?
   • Sponsees: The OPSC’s Elevate and Advocate sponsorship program targeted CALD employees with leadership ambitions, from Clerk Grade 7/8 – 11/12 (or equivalent level) or with 10-15 years of experience
   • Sponsors: senior executives, mainly non-CALD with some CALD representation
3. How much of the outcome is experienced and by when?
   • Over the program duration, a CALD sponsee pool is established, with their aspirations and goals clarified
   • At the program close, sponsees are ready and supported to move towards their career goal
   • Post program, sponsees continue moving towards their goals and attain more senior roles
4. What contribution do sponsors or the organisation make toward that outcome
   • Sponsors use their voice to promote, encourage and influence other senior leaders to buy in and support the program or become sponsors themselves
   • The organisation promotes the program internally and externally, making it visible and accessible to all employees and external stakeholders
5. What are the risks to realising this impact
   • What does this mean for reporting on impact? It may mean the program achieves only a low or limited positive impact
   • Note: Have plans to mitigate program risks, including:

• • • sponsors not adequately supporting CALD sponsees
    • sponsees not clarifying career goals or having a clear career plan
    • sponsees not being amplified in professional networks
    • sponsors being unable to address barriers to progression

Source: Impact Frontiers (Formerly the Impact Management Project), Five Dimensions of Impact

Thinking about the types of impact can also help with evaluation. There are 6 well known types of impact:

1. Cultural Impact:
   • Sponsorship relationships contribute to the understanding of shared ideas, realities, values and beliefs
   • CALD sponsorship improves cultural competence, respect of different cultures, and increases understanding of cultural safety  
2. Economic Impact
   • Sponsorship can impact economic and financial equity. CALD participants may experience underemployment and career plateaus
   • CALD sponsorship can contribute to addressing individual career progression and in some cases, underemployment. However, there is limited scope to impact this on an institutional level within a sponsorship program.
3. Wellbeing Impact
   • Sponsorship can create a positive impact on wellbeing for sponsors and sponsees
   • CALD sponsees are more visible and valued in their workplaces, creating a significant positive impact
   • For sponsors, the act of giving and creating impact in another person’s career journey has a positive impact on inclusivity and practice-based inclusive leadership
4. Social Impact
   • Sponsorship relationships provide a benefit to civil society and social cohesion
   • Qualitative surveys show that sponsors and sponsees have a positive impact in their broader communities as result of their sponsorship experiences
5. Policy Impact
   • Sponsor experiences of advocating for a CALD sponsee improves their understanding of inclusive policy making. This leads to policies which better consider diverse needs, both internally and for the community.
6. System Impact
   • Sponsors learn to use their influence in the systems of recruitment, selection, onboarding, development and advancement
   • As sponsors support a CALD sponsee, they develop a keen and personal understanding of systemic barriers and how to reduce or eliminate these barriers

There are eight principles of impact, which look at impact from a qualitative and experiential perspective.

1. Participation
   • Is participation fair, equitable, accessible, and respectful?
2. Transparency
   • Was the process of selecting the cohort transparent?
   • Are the expectations of the program and timing clearly outlined?
3. Security and safety           
   • What are the key design elements and protocols to govern participant safety?
4. Accountability      
   • How are sponsors held to account?
   • How are sponsees held to account?
   • How is the overall Executive Sponsor of the program held to account?
5. Credibility                 
   • What gives the program its credibility? Is there expert and evidence-based design, delivery and support?
6. Cost efficiency and effectiveness         
   • What is the return on investment of the program? Consider this against the duration of the program, and any budget or other resource investments.
7. Flexibility 
   • How flexible and agile is the program? For example, how did the program respond to machinery of government changes, internal restructures, sponsor-sponsee fit issues, personal issues or professional issues?
8. Practicality              
   • In practice, how implementable are the ideas, concepts, and ways of working to the agency’s everyday context?