Measuring Social Return on Investment

Abstract

Strategic decision making and evaluation in philanthropic giving and social investment requires good‐quality information about the social impacts of that investment. One way to meet this need is by calculating a social return on investment (SROI) measure, akin to the return on investment (ROI) approach used in business analysis. Despite much buzz in the field, SROI measurements are rarely used, in part because of the complexity of the calculations but also because of a number of thorny and often expensive organizational challenges associated with implementing an SROI process. This article explores these implementation challenges by comparing four social venture organizations in the health care field—two in the Netherlands and two in the United States—that have utilized some sort of SROI measurement. We summarize the SROI process and identify the specific organizational challenges in each case. Lessons learned from this analysis include the value of process versus product and the importance of fitting the type of measurement to the organizational context. We conclude with a summary of best practices for organizations and social investors who might try to make effective use of SROI measures.

The evaluation of nurse navigators in chronic and complex care

“…Multi‐level modelling is a technique that accounts for the random variation in starting points per participant on the variables of interest, while also accounting for the likelihood of similarities in participants within nested conditions (e.g., being treated by the same nurse), thereby providing a better likelihood of enhanced model validity in comparison to traditional ANOVA or similar methods. Furthermore, multi‐level modelling is robust to missing data. Social Return on Investment (SROI) is defined as ‘a systematic analysis of the effects of an organization on its communities of interest or stakeholders, with stakeholder input as part of the data that are analysed for the accounting statement’ (Moodey, Littlepage, & Paydar, , p. 21). The Flanagan's QoL and the Meke Meter will be graded (Flanagan's, $1.00 per point graduation; Meke Meter, 10c per increment over all scales).…”

“…By using the Flanagan's QoL and the Meke Meter, we can review total scores as quality of life scores, and we can also examine correlations and variances against each question and parameter based on the indicative economic value. A cost‐benefit analysis (CBA) encompassing acute service and community indicators. CBA allows the assessment of all options that are available to achieve a desired outcome, and is considered a key tool for the development of evidence‐based policy (Moody et al, ). Indicative cost values will include acute service savings through a reduction in patient beddays, admissions and re‐admissions, reduction in patients failing to attend appointments, and in the community through the increasing financial value assigned in the Flanagan's QoL scale and the Meke Meter. A cost‐effectiveness analysis is also proposed, where the effectiveness of the new model of care is compared with the usual model of care, relative to their costs.…”

“…A cost-benefit analysis (CBA) encompassing acute service and community indicators. CBA allows the assessment of all options that are available to achieve a desired outcome, and is considered a key tool for the development of evidence-based policy (Moody et al, 2015). Indicative cost values will include acute service savings through a reduction in patient beddays, admissions and re-admissions, reduction in patients failing to attend appointments, and in the community through the increasing financial value assigned in the Flanagan's QoL scale and the Meke Meter.…”

The social impact of advice during disability welfare reform: from social return on investment to evidencing public value through realism and complexity

“…Maier et al 2015;Banke-Thomas et al 2015) suggest that if methodological issues can be addressed then it may be possible to arrive a rigorous and reliable ratio that is representative of social impact. Methodological SROI problems include understanding what causes social impacts, as outcomes may be influenced by different, overlapping factors that are difficult to disentangle (Moody, Littlepage, and Paydar 2015). Here, qualitative methods may be important to understand how an intervention's mechanisms lead to the desired outcomes (Maier et al 2015).…”

Performance Evaluation and Measurement in Public Organizations: A Systematic Literature Review

“…As showed in Table 5, there are six variables to be advantageously taken into account in managing public organizations, especially in light of the potential influence that they seem to exert on different types of business performances (Moody, Littlepage, & Paydar, 2015;Majumdar, Sen, Highsmith, & Cherrington, 2013;Dossi & Patelli, 2010;Schochet & Burghardt, 2008;Savaya & Waysman, 2005;Voytek, Lellock, & Schmit, 2004):…”