The purpose of this tool is to help people using it map out their stakeholder market when doing SROI evaluations. It’s good to be used with companies and initiatives where they have some idea about the people they work with and the impact of their work. Ripple effect model, where the people closest to the intervention are the ones presumed to get the most benefit from it.
The mapping tool is not really useful in cases where the interviewee or group of interviewees doesn’t know much about the organisation or the workings of the initiative.
Step 1: get people to write stakeholder groups on sticky notes, one group per note. It doesn’t have to be clean, it can be as broad or as specific as they like. I.e. “men aged 14-24” or “schoolchildren” or “LGBTQIA+ teens” or “older people on benefits”. The idea is for people to think broadly and to consider the number of people impacted directly and indirectly by their work.
Questions to help with Step 1:
Who do you meet with?
Where do you get your referrals from?
Who do the people you work with interact with?
Who brings them to sessions?
Who looks after them when they are not in your care?
Which services do you work with the most?
Which services would people go to if you weren’t there?
Intended and unintended consequences mapping grid:
The purpose of this tool is for interview participants and groups to think about intended and unintended consequences for particular groups of people. This can be used as a mapping tool, or as a set of questions to get people to think about the broader impact of what they are doing.
In the grid, the following terms have been used:
Intended consequences: What the initiative/charity/intervention has set out to achieve, and has achieved, i.e. a reduction in the number of suicides over the past 10 years.
Unintended positive consequences: What the initiative/charity/intervention did not set out to achieve, but had a positive impact anyway, i.e. reduction of the cases of PTSD in a community following suicide.
Unintended negative consequences: What the initiative/charity/intervention did not set out to achieve, but had a negative impact anyway, i.e. an intervention aimed at reducing LGBTQUIA+ based bullying having the opposite effect.
Primary Stakeholders, Secondary Stakeholder, Tertiary Stakeholders: Terms used to designate groups of people impacted depending on how immediate their contact was with the intervening group or charity. For example, a suicide reduction intervention would have people at risk of suicide as the primary stakeholders, friends and family as secondary stakeholders, and wider community as tertiary stakeholders.