As this Knowledge Connect has shown, outcomes are the changes that matter. And there are many good reasons why we need to continue to focus on outcomes in order to make better decisions.  But the missing piece in this puzzle is that a focus on what changes is not enough: we need to know how changes happen.

In a short blog titled “To Maximize Impact, Evaluate More than Just Outcomes” Julie Slay, from Arabella Advisors, suggests that a focus on how organisations implement a program have important effects on all types of outcomes, including unintended consequences. This is critical as we recognise that the outcomes that matter will be different for different audiences (or stakeholders). For example, there are likely to be differences between the intended outcomes for a funder, the organisation and the primary beneficiaries from the same program.

Similarly to the advice of other authors, Slay notes the importance of measuring outcomes that are important to different stakeholder groups (not just the funder). Slay’s blog pushes our thinking to go beyond measuring, evaluating and (subsequently) managing to the outcomes activities create. She warns against having an unyielding focus on the intended outcomes of a funder, which may be far from what actually changes or what matters to different stakeholders.

There are also other unintended benefits of using measurement and evaluation to focus on how changes happen rather than just what changes have happened. A focus on how changes happen encourages critical inquiry, a chance to reflect on the underlying mechanisms or philosophy about how your machine (yes, your program, organisation or initative!) works. It can be challenging, but it could also be a trigger for cultural changes as it results in greater accountability and transparency about how you are able to achieve outcomes.

Simon Faivel
Director, SVA Consulting
Chair, Social Impact Measurement Network of Australia (SIMNA)

No matter the sector trying to measure impact or the approach taken, understanding what types of evidence are credible, rigorous and reliable is a critical factor.  In this 2012 article Lisbeth Schorr (Lecturer in social medicine at Harvard University and Senior Fellow at the Centre for the Study of Social Policy) presents a case for a broader understanding of evidence and common ground for improving evidence for impact.

The article is framed around the debate between experimentalists and inclusionists. Experimentalists argue that credible and rigorous evidence is the result of scientific methods such as randomised clinical trials (RCT) which aim to identify a causal relationship between an intervention and outcome. RCTs are often lauded as the ‘gold standard’ of evidence. Inclusionists reject the solely scientific view. They advocate for a broader and richer understanding of evidence that better reflects the realities of social interventions and the complexities of wicked problems.

Schorr argues for the middle ground. She maintains that users of evaluations and impact measurement need to acknowledge the complexities of social programs and the methodological limitations of scientific approaches and thus take a broader view of evidence. Schorr emphasises the importance of high quality evidence that focuses on outcomes for users, communities and society. And she warns against relying solely on evidence of past performance because it overlooks shifting political, economic and social contexts and rapid developments and innovations in service delivery.

To assist organisations to effectively navigate the measurement space for improved evidence and impact, Schorr presents a pathway of four fundamental principles that is relevant for both camps:

1. 1.     Begin with a results framework: Start with a results framework to identify clear and measurable results for users and communities. This should be developed through a collaborative process with stakeholders and should include clarity and agreement around: purpose, commitment to data, accountability of results, responsibilities and structure for the evaluation.
2. Match evaluation methods to their purpose: As identified in Barraket & Yousefpour (2013) it is important to understand the reasons why you are measuring and what you will use the evidence for before deciding on an appropriate method.
3. 3.     Draw on credible evidence from multiple sources: Where available, use existing sources of credible and quality evidence. These can include program evaluations, academic studies and reports.
4. Identify core components of successful interventions: Identifying and understanding the core components of effective interventions and how they can be adapted to your organisation’s context can provide evidence for improved performance.

Stephen Bennett
Research Officer, the Centre for Social Impact

Tris Lumley, the Director of Development at NPC and international thought leader and practitioner in the field of social impact and investment, argues that impact measurement must be tailored for and driven by not for profits. In “Raising the Bar on Nonprofit Impact Measurement”, Lumley examines the actors in the social impact system and their roles in its measurement.

While there are three key actors in the social impact system (funders, service providers and beneficiaries), UK research has found that funder requirements are the primary reason for an increase in impact measurement. While funders are the driving motivation to measure impact, service providers see improved strategy and services as a result. Lumley positions this as a paradox: “Nonprofits measure their results to satisfy funders, but the main reward is better service, not increased funding” (Lumley, 2013).

He uses this paradox to argue that measurement must be meaningful for not for profits and that they should drive the approach used to measure outcomes. As he outlines: “It’s more a matter of practical knowledge (are we doing better than last year?) than theoretical proof (can we attribute this change specifically to this intervention?). We’re more interested in performance management and using evidence to improve services, for example, than in randomised control trials.”

Lumley argues that not for profits should drive their own impact measurement agendas to ensure that they understand their beneficiaries and develop and/or adapt services to match these needs: “Good impact measurement will ensure that they remain close, and understand the detail and nuance of their lives. In the end, that’s an approach to raising the bar on impact that helps make us accountable to beneficiaries – the people we’re here to help.”

Lumley’s argument fits well with the requirement to understand and to prioritise and meet the needs of each stakeholder group. If not for profits are primarily concerned about their “performance”, the question that remains, however, is: how do not for profits define “performance”? Is it tied to the outcomes of those beneficiaries? And can these outcomes be tracked overtime and compared across sectors and measurement levels?

Kristy Muir
Research Director (Social Outcomes), the Centre for Social Impact

Works like those of Epstein and Yuthas and the IIRC are aimed across sectors. Other experts write specifically about outcomes and impact measurement for particular groups. Professor Barraket, the recently appointed Director at the Centre for Social Impact Swinburne, and her co-author Yousefpour, for example, examine the benefits and challenges of social impact measurement (SIM) experienced by social enterprises (SEs)^[1].

Barraket and Yousefpour’s article fills a gap in the lack of discourse on the value of measurement for SEs, their funders or the communities they serve, and the SIM needs of external stakeholders. While the existing literature suggests SIM can improve performance or access to markets, Barraket and Yousefpour’s research found that “compliance demands of existing grant funders” were a primary motivation for measurement. The article outlines the challenges, perceived benefits, and the effects on learning and performance SEs experience in undertaking SIM (see Table 1).

While this article focuses on SEs, the insights, key questions and recommendations are relevant for other social purpose initiatives measuring their social impact.

Table 1: Challenges, benefits and use of social impact measurement among SEs

Source: adapted from Barraket & Yousefpour (2013)

Barraket & Yousefpour outline key recommendations for SEs considering or undertaking SIM:

1. 1.     Understand the purpose of impact measurement to frame the how and the what: SEs should understand the purpose for undertaking SIM. This will assist in framing the “how and what to measure”. Without clarity on why SEs are trying to measure, what evidence is required, who SEs will be reporting to and how others will use the evidence, there is a risk that inappropriate approaches impractical indicators could be selected.
2. 2.     Understand different stakeholders’ needs in relation to measuring and communicating SIM: External stakeholders are important, however, often little is known about their needs and how they use the outputs of SIM in practice.  Understanding stakeholders’ needs are crucial to guide purpose and practice of SIM, particularly in situations with multiple competing interests, reporting and compliance requirements.
3. Make sure attention is paid to organisational ‘readiness’ for SIM: Organisational ‘readiness’ is the cultivation and development of organisational culture and leadership and the development of skills and capacity for SIM. Developing organisational ‘readiness’ should be the first practical step for organisations considering SIM, to prepare to navigate the barriers and challenges to effective measurement.

While this article focuses on SEs, the insights, key questions and recommendations are relevant for other social purpose initiatives measuring their social impact.

Stephen Bennett
Research Officer, the Centre for Social Impact

The biggest changes in our society often start through a campaign. Organisations that focus on advocacy can act as the catalyst for fundamental shifts in the law and how we treat other people (or animals, or the environment). For this type of work, success can often be perceived as “all or nothing”– either we have made a change or we haven’t. A recent publication from Cecilie Hestbaek, a researcher specialising in the mental health sector and charity campaigning from New Philanthropy Capital (NPC), Closing in on Change – Measuring the Effectiveness of your Campaign provides some thoughtful guidance for organisations measuring the outcomes of their campaigns.

Hestbaek discusses the reasons for good measurement and evaluation for organisations running campaigns and the challenges they face. The benefits described include the chance to learn on the job, being accountable to stakeholders and being appealing to funders. These equally apply to other social purpose organisations

Organisations running campaigns face a number of challenges in measuring their outcomes. The most notable is the time frame in which decisions need to be made to correct a course of action. The curly question of a campaigns’ contribution is also worthwhile mentioning because often a shift in public sentiment is required, and that can only happen through multiple (and varied sources).

Hestbaek recommends that organisations follow NPC’s four pillar approach: map your theory of change, prioritise what you measure, choose your level of evidence and select your sources and tools. This is no different to any other organisation wanting to measure and evaluate their success. Regardless of the challenges organisations face to measure and evaluate the success of a campaign or a service, taking a practical staged approach is a useful way of making this happen. Take small steps in your measurement and evaluation journey, and learn along the way.

Simon Faivel
Director, SVA Consulting
Chair, Social Impact Measurement Network of Australia (SIMNA)

Just a few months prior to the release of Epstein and Yuthas’ book, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC*) published a conceptual framework for the preparation of a concise, user-oriented “Integrated Report”. Integrated Reporting demonstrates the linkages between an organization’s strategy, governance and financial performance and the social, environmental and economic context within which organisations operate. By reinforcing these connections, Integrated Reporting aims to help organisations make more appropriate decisions to achieve outcomes and enable stakeholders to understand how an organization is really performing.

The framework was developed by some of the major international parties involved in corporate reporting. It aims to address the limitations with the Annual Reports that tend to be narrow in scope and compliance-orientated in nature, making it hard for the reader to understand whether desired outcomes are being achieved. Integrated Reporting places more emphasis on the most material aspects of performance. It looks at both the story (the narrative) and the numbers (quantitative metrics) and considers the environmental, social, human, intellectual and governance capital (the resources and relationships) that are available to an organization and their interlinkages.

While the Integrated Reporting framework was originally developed for large corporations, because of its emphasis on outcomes, it is a useful reporting framework for not-for-profit organisations. It addresses the problems of existing measurement approaches which are based on short-term input/output measures and tend to undervalue achievement on outcomes that are non-financial and difficult to quantify.

Roger Simnett
Academic Director, the Centre for Social Impact

*The International Integrated Reporting Council is a “global coalition of regulators, investors, companies, standard setters, the accounting profession and NGOs”

At a time when there is much discussion, rhetoric and theory around social impact investment and social impact measurement, Epstein and Yuthas’ Measuring and Improving Social Impacts is a very useful, clear and practical guide.

Mark Epstein (a Professor of Management at Rice University, Houston & previously of Business School, Harvard Business School, and INSEAD) is an international expert on sustainability, governance, performance measurement and accountability for non-profit and corporate organisations. Co-author Kristi Yuthas (the Swigert Endowed Professor of Management and Information Systems in the School of Business Administration at Portland State University) has expertise in accounting, financial analysis and information system development and measurement to address complex social issues. Together they have produced an easy-to-read book that helps different sectors understand why they should invest in, and measure, social impact.

Epstein and Yuthas establish a strong case for measurement. They challenge readers to answer questions like:  “You’re investing your money, your time, your reputation in worthwhile causes, but are you really making a difference?” and “Organizations talk a lot about the work they do and the number of lives affected, but are these people really better off?”. They point out the increasing expectations and requirements for accountability to funders and donors and that where governments are providing tax benefits to social investors, it is “reasonable to demand that the money be wisely invested to create as much social impact as possible”. With limited resources and increasing or unchanging social issues, there is also a strong imperative to invest in initiatives that can make a difference:

“Billions of dollars are spent each year by NGOs, governments, and foundations with the explicit intent to make positive social impacts. … Too much of this money is squandered. Yes, some is through waste and inefficiency, and that should be eliminated. However, much is squandered by well-intended yet failed attempts to deliver important social changes.”

Epstein and Yuthas also maintain that social impact is important for organisational viability and sustainability. Indeed, they argue that “Although budgets, fundraising, and efficiency are important, social impact is the new bottom line for the social sector.”

To assist the reader to navigate and step through the measurement pathway, Epstein and Yuthas ask five overarching questions:

1. What will you invest?
2. What problem will you address?
3. What steps will you take?
4. How will you measure success?
5. How can you increase impact?

This cyclic process means that improving and measuring social impact is integrated into the organisation’s/investor’s intent and purpose, strategic thinking, operational plans and their day-to-day processes; rather than seeing measurement as a separate responsibility for an arm of the organisation.

They also use an Impact Measurement Roadmap to guide readers through the process of preparing foundations for measurement (including the logic for change), considering how the results will be used, identifying impacts and metrics and developing a measurement system. Getting the foundations right is critical to ensuring measurement is effective. Without clarity on aims and how those aims will “realistically be achieved”, organisations are at risk of failing to have a social impact or being able to measure or articulate what their impact is. As Epstein and Yuthas reported:

“A common explanation for lack of effectiveness is that the organisation has not been clear enough about its definition of success and lacks a well-defined logic model that would likely lead to success. Too often we find serious gaps in the logic model and little evidence that activities are likely to lead to the proposed impacts.”

By clearly articulating aims and the logic for how these aims will be achieved and by establishing and implementing quality measurement and reporting, organisations can grow and increase their impact.

Kristy Muir
Research Director (Social Outcomes), the Centre for Social Impact

From the Editor: Associate Professor Kristy Muir, Research Director (Social Outcomes), the Centre for Social Impact

Around one in five people in Australia have a mental illness and almost one in five a disability, increasing their risk of being out of work, having a lower level of education and being socially isolated. We have rising health and aged care costs, but a shrinking workforce and the highest level of youth unemployment in more than a decade. More than half a million children (0-14 years) in Australia live in jobless families. We battle with housing affordability and availability, and homelessness. And the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians remains vast in many areas. Australia’s position on the international inequity list has risen. This is not just a problem for those who are being left behind; it also affects the functioning of society and the stability of the economy.

This is at a time when we spend around $300 billion a year on social purpose and where government resources are becoming increasingly scarce. Now, more than ever, we need to concentrate on making progress on social outcomes. We need to focus on what we want to achieve, how we will meet these goals and whether, where, and under what circumstances, we’re making a difference.

Our social progress has arguably been stymied because we don’t or haven’t concentrated enough on outcomes. Together we’ve created a system that has good intentions, but more often focuses, counts and funds what and how much we do, rather than whether we are making a difference. We need to know whether people are really any better off. Are our children, young people, adults, our aged, families and communities are any happier, healthier, or have a better quality of life? Are they more able to participate in education, work, their communities and socially? Are people more resilient, included and connected? Do we know whether services, enterprises, innovations and supports are changing lives, communities and society? Do we know where to spend and shift our limited resources for social change? To be able to answer these questions, we need to focus on outcomes. We need to be clear on what outcomes we’re trying to achieve, how we can achieve them and if and where they are occurring.

There is a plethora of literature around on evaluation, outcomes and impact measurement. But outcomes measurement isn’t easy to navigate. This Knowledge Connect brings together a number of key thinkers in outcomes measurement who have published on:

–       Why measure outcomes (Hesbaek, 2014; Barraket & Yousefpour, 2013; Epstein & Yuthas, 2014; Lumley, 2013)

–       Frameworks and pathways for measurement (Epstein & Yuthas, 2014; International Integrated Reporting Council, 2013; Hesbaek, 2014);

–       How to measure outcomes (including, identifying quality indicators, metrics or evidence; Esptein & Yuthas, 2014; Schorr, 2012); and

–       Why we need to also understand how changes occur (Slay, 2014).

Although each of the pieces, reviewed by Simon Faivel, Roger Simnett and Stephen Bennett, focuses on different sectors, or a combination of sectors, key shared insights emerge.

Measurement matters because it can assist to achieve organisational learning, development and improved services/performance; accountability and compliance to stakeholders (funders, donors, tax payers); communication, branding and organisational legitimacy; increased efficiency; organisational benchmarking, competitiveness and sustainability; and, most importantly, improved outcomes (Barraket & Yousefpour, 2013; Epstein & Yuthas, 2014; Hesbaek, 2014; Lumley, 2014). At a time when resources are scarce and markets are shifting to empower consumers to decide which services and supports they choose to purchase (think, for example, about the National Disability Insurance Scheme), organisations who do not measure outcomes are likely to be left behind. So, why measure outcomes? In summary, despite the sector you’re from, the answer is because we can’t afford not to.

Most literature on outcomes measurement recommends taking a step-wise approach. Epstein and Yuthas (2014) and the International Integrated Reporting Framework (2014) recommend that the measurement pathway should be integrated into overall organisational purpose, strategy and reporting.

All of the authors reviewed recommend starting with a solid foundation. Getting the foundations right is critical. This includes an ‘organisational readiness’ for measurement (Barraket & Yousefpour, 2013) and mapping a theory of change (see for example New Philanthropy Capital’s four pillar approach to measurement, Hesbaek, 2014; Schorr, 2012; Epstein & Yuthas, 2014).

Once organisations are clear on what they can, need and want to measure, measurement methods need to be matched to rigorous approaches, quality evidence, stakeholder requirements and timing (Schorr, 2012; Lumley, 2013; Slay, 2014). Effective outcomes measurement relies on strong support and commitment from leaders and funders to measure outcomes (Barraket & Yousefpour, 2013), share outcome tools and transparently report findings (Schorr, 2012). Quality shared measurement will enable organisations to learn from each other, potentially save cost and time, increase quality, build an evidence base, and, hopefully, make social progress.

While individual evaluations can be important, if we continue to measure in silos, we are at risk of duplication, repeating the same mistakes, not being able to compare outcomes across intervention types or to solve the bigger picture social issues.

Now, more than ever as we face a major demographic shift, and as public spending shrinks in a diminishing social economy it’s time to measure what matters. It’s time to ask: Are we measuring what matters, measuring it well and tracking change at organisational, sector, local and population levels? We also need to ask the tough questions about what’s stopping us from effectively measuring outcomes, how we can overcome barriers to shared measurement and transparency and let go of concerns about precisely how much of a change can be attributed to each of us. Let’s progress the measurement of social outcomes for Australia.

—

If you’re interested in contributing to the debate and discussion as to how we progress social outcomes measurement in Australia across all sectors and/or in exploring, learning about, building skills and developing a plan of action for outcomes measurement, you should join us at the Think Outcomes conference 20-21 November 2014, Sydney. The Centre for Social Impact is partnering Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) and the Social Impact Measurement Network Australia (SIMNA) to present the two-day conference. CSI will also be launching a guide to measuring outcomes during the conference.

Download Print Version: Knowledge Connect – The Outcomes Issue – October 2014

When buyers use their purchasing power to achieve social outcomes beyond the products and services they require, they are undertaking social procurement. Social procurement is a strategic approach to procurement which allows organisations to achieve multiple outcomes through their procurement spend including:

• The creation of employment for marginalised groups and those excluded from the labour market; and
• Regenerating of local economies; and
• Ensuring fair work practices in developing countries.

Social procurement is gaining traction in Australia and internationally as governments and the private sector come to realise that greater value can be extracted from the procurement process. In the last five years:

• Advocates for social procurement have become more active;
• Supplier networks have been created to make it easier to buy from disability organisations, indigenous businesses and social enterprises;
• Guidelines and tools have been developed to support procurers to ‘buy social’;
• Research has been carried out into corporate and government buyers;
• Networks have emerged in NSW and Victoria; and
• There has been an increase in the amount of social procurement occurring.

This edition of Knowledge Connect utilises recent literature from Australia and overseas to explore social procurement as a tool for delivering social impact, and in particular to better understand what social value is created through social procurement.

Some interesting conclusions can be drawn from the review of literature on social procurement, particularly in identifying that the value created through social procurement differs for private buyers, public buyers, government finances and beneficiaries; the evidence for social procurement is compelling but sparse in relation to some outcome areas; and the critical role of enabling legislation and targets.

Social procurement generates different types of value to the different stakeholders involved. Corporations engaging with social procurement are generally driven by reputation enhancement and the associated community relations benefits. While government also enjoys these benefits, there are also significant benefits generated through employment and community wellbeing that often translate to savings for government. The value for beneficiaries ranges from marginal to life-changing.

The presumption that the value of social procurement is self-evident is unrealistic. There is implicit value in social procurement but there is implicit social value generated in all procurement. As such, capturing the added value is critical in building the evidence and broader adoption of social procurement. Social procurement is being evaluated in different ways, extensively in some fields and sparsely in others, and this is a critical challenge for social procurement. Different social objectives required different approaches, for example buying fair trade is different to buying local which is different again to bringing marginalised people into the labour market. This is not a barrier to all buyers but it often is for some government buyers and Treasury departments who are trying to demonstrate added value.

Social procurement in Australia does not require enabling legislation. Existing legislation does not prevent social procurement, however it does not encourage social procurement either. Nelson and Pound assert that there is a need for targets and benchmarks for social procurement in the UK. Targets and affirmative action through legislation in the US has driven over $100B per annum in government social procurement, creating employment opportunities for people with disabilities and economic inclusion for minority groups.

In this edition, we connect you with some of the most recent thinking on social procurement inspired by Social Traders’ recent research into Corporate Social Procurement in Australia and the social enterprise procurement exchange being established by Social Traders (the need for which was identified in the report). It provides a precursor to The Social Marketplace event – presented by the Centre for Social Impact – which will feature a stream on social procurement.

Mark Daniels
Editor, Knowledge Connect, Winter 2014

Mark Daniels has been involved, engaged and excited by social procurement since designing and awarding a cleaning services contract, containing social clauses, on the Atherton Gardens (Fitzroy) public housing estate in 2002. The contract required the successful tenderer to employ 35% of their labour force from unemployed public housing tenants living on the estate. Overnight, 15 public housing tenants got jobs and the estate’s joblessness rate went from 95% to 93%. With continued social procurement initiatives and job creation schemes the jobless rate at Atherton Gardens reduced to 81% by 2008. As well as being a buyer, Mark has worked in social enterprises delivering on socially procured contracts. Over the last six years he has been a social procurement advocate brokering many contracts between social enterprises and buyers in his role as the head of Market and Sector Development at Social Traders, a specialist social enterprise development organisation. Mark Daniels will be speaking at The Social Marketplace 2014.

Chris Newman is the guest editor for this edition. He came to social procurement through strategic procurement work he was undertaking with local government, where he saw community issues and needs on one side of council and procurement decisions on the other side and never the twain shall meet. The disconnect was not just about silos, it was about poor strategy. Chris now advises organisations across Australia on procurement practice and strategy through Arc Blue.

The NSW Social Procurement Action Group (SPAG) came together in late 2011 with a specific agenda – to increase understanding and activity in the growing field of social procurement. Across NSW there were some exciting examples emerging, with Government at all levels using procurement as a strategic tool to drive social outcomes, particularly in generating employment for disadvantaged communities. Yet the activity was being done in isolation, without a common language or body of work to underpin it. Representing seventeen State, Federal and Local Government agencies, SPAG emerged as a Network of practitioners and interested agencies. The critical task identified was to develop Guidelines for good practice, supported by local case studies and legal advice relevant to any public service agency looking to socially procure.

Social Procurement in NSW (‘The NSW Guide’) focuses on four critical elements of social procurement. The first section sets out the business case and the context. The guidelines highlight the scale of activity in NSW, where State and Local Government procurement expenditure alone is estimated at $27bn/ year, representing enormous market power to drive Government’s strategic objectives. As Procurement Roadmap and Accreditation Programs are rolled out across Government, procurement is moving from an administrative low level activity to a critical strategic role, and Government is increasingly understanding the role that procurement can have in helping to address some of our most challenging social, environmental and economic problems.

The second section of the NSW Guide provides a step-by-step approach to making your organisation ‘social procurement ready’, addressing topics ranging from: engaging senior management, to developing appropriate policies and procedures, to education, training, and opportunity analysis. The NSW Guide provides a detailed model to help any organisation to set themselves up to ensure social objectives are considered as an integrated part of their procurement practice.

Section three provides a detailed approach to the integration of social procurement into each stage of the procurement process, from procurement planning, specification and evaluation criteria development to contract monitoring, evaluation and reporting. The NSW Guide is designed to respond to the need expressed by many for practical guidance to help those looking to incorporate social objectives into their procurement practice in a robust, balanced and effective way.

The final section provides a question and answer section followed by 17 pages of detailed legal advice demonstrating conclusively that as long as processes are transparent and followed appropriately, social procurement is not only legal, but ‘good practice’, ensuring Government’s social and economic objectives are properly considered in its procurement practice.

The content in the NSW Guide is supported by 17 diverse case studies and a range of diagrams and models designed to help generalists looking to introduce new approaches to addressing social challenges, as well as procurement practitioners looking for structured guidance and examples of social procurement application. Many of the case studies reflect the way social procurement is being used as a key tool to effectively address issues such as employment creation in areas of place-based disadvantage in metropolitan and regional NSW, and the provision of job pathways to disadvantaged communities, with a particular focus on indigenous, people with a disability and long-term unemployed.

While the NSW Guide specifically addresses social procurement in the public sector in NSW, it can be picked up and applied by any private or public sector organisation throughout. Launched in Western Sydney, the Illawarra and the Central Coast to over 250 people, the NSW Guide is proving a vital tool to support the implementation of the goals of NSW SPAG, (now a chapter of Social Procurement Australasia) in driving the uptake and effective implementation of good practice social procurement for the long-term benefits of the people and communities of NSW.