Theoretical sample selection

!

During the first round of theoretical sample selection, a local social enterprise membership body, Social Enterprise West Midlands (SEWM), was approached. This meeting led SEWM to distribute an invitation to participate in the research project to its members. One organization did respond from this source, Positive Youth Foundation, but within an initial meeting it was discovered that the organization was unsuitable for this particular study due to their small size (e.g., <10 employees) and lack of established PM practices.

Following the slow response rate from the members of SEWM, a new approach was taken. Several networking events were attended (e.g., Oxford Social Enterprise Forum; Social Enterprise West Midlands Social Finance Fair; Social Impact Analysts Association Social Value Workshop; Global Value Exchange Workshop) to establish contact with important figures interested in social enterprise performance measurement in the UK. Also, an advanced search of the online directory of the Charities Commission in the United Kingdom, the national charity register, was conducted and included organizations with at least £1M turnover that were over 20 years old and had more than 50 employees. As this is an in-depth multiple case study, the search focused on the regions within 100 miles of the researcher for facilitation of frequent travel. The new activities led to a list of 20 organizations.

Websites and press articles concerning the short-listed organizations from the networking and advanced search were analyzed to determine which enterprises had positive reputations in their respective fields and on-going PM activities. This resulted in a short-list of nine organizations that were then contacted by email. Pilot interviews (telephone and face-to-face) with those organizations responding positively to the email introducing the research project were then held to determine the suitability of organizations as candidates for the purposes of the study. These qualification meetings were held with the following organizations: Belu Water, The Brilliant Club, The Big Issue, Youth Futures, Pheonix Futures, Midland Heart, and Organic Earth. The interview addressed the

prevalence and usage of PM practices within the organization (e.g., which practices, tools, and measures were being utilized; by whom; how often; and goals and challenges with performance measurement). The researcher chose not to proceed with several of the cases as the more in-depth consultations showed that they did not meet the basic inclusion criteria for the study. Additionally, a couple of organizations had specific reasons (staff time constraints, internal projects, etc.) for excluding themselves at this stage of the sampling process.

Ultimately, two social enterprises were chosen: Youth Futures and Organic Earth. Specifically, the selected organizations displayed the desired theoretical characteristics: 1) they were well established social enterprises in their fields demonstrating a capacity to perform over time in a sustainable manner; and 2) they had adopted different approaches to PM, to allow for a contrast of findings amongst various practices and effects of PM (e.g., how different uses of formal and informal approaches effected various stakeholders). Descriptive information about the cases is presented in Table 3.1 below, and a summary of the PM practices at each in Table 3.2. Pseudonym names are used for anonymity purposes at request of the participating organizations.

! !

Table 3.1: Theoretically sampled case organizations

Youth Futures Organic Earth Accommodation and support services for

young people who are homeless or at risk aged 16-25

Advocate, research and educate benefits & techniques of organic growing

Founded 1972 Founded 1954

£8million annual turnover £4million annual turnover 200 employees

Approximately 10 volunteers

70 employees

Approximately 900 volunteers 5000 beneficiaries/year Engages with 40,000 people a year

(membership, volunteers, events, programs & gardens)

Table 3.2: Summary of performance measurement processes at case organizations

Performance measurement processes

Youth Futures Organic Earth

Key Performance Indicators Organizational level Team level Individual level Organizational level Project level Performance meetings

Quarterly Board of Trustees Monthly Management Briefing

Monthly Housing Workers Monthly Support Workers Weekly accommodation project meetings

Bi-weekly case review meetings

Quarterly Board of Trustees Monthly Senior Management Departmental Team Meetings (Note- mostly done informally)

External reporting

Monthly KPI reports to commissioners

Monthly meetings with social services and Justice services

Monthly blog posts for funders Project specific KPIs

Research Presentations Award schemes for projects

Outcome measurement tools Outcome Star Case studies Case studies

External evaluations: interviews, focus groups, journals, letters, and photographs of beneficiaries Beneficiary surveys

Social Return on Investment Analysis

To facilitate the comparability of cases, the final sample therefore consisted of two similar sized and aged organizations. The organizations are amongst the most established group of social enterprises in the UK in terms of age, size,

turnover, and trade. However, they differ in two important ways: the particular combination of PM practices in use, and the area of the social sector served (i.e., youth homelessness and organic gardening).

The aim is therefore to understand how different PM practices lead to varied responses at the individual level in social enterprises. Also, it is to help explain how typical well-performing social enterprises and their stakeholders experience, leverage, benefit and/or are constrained in their quests to achieve multiple objectives by imposed and self-selected performance measurement practices (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).