The social return on investment in community befriending

Abstract

Purpose – This paper seeks to illustrate the social and economic impact of services delivered by a small charity to families affected by post-natal depression (PND). It highlights challenges and offers insights to the meaning of “social value” and “value for money” for commissioners of public health services. This has relevance for the introduction of new policies regarding commissioning. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on a social return on investment (SROI) approach. Evidence was gathered from quantitative data, interviews and a literature review. The analysis examined short-, medium- and long-term effects, and attributed monetary values to social outcomes. Findings – The service provides a return of £6.50 for every £1 invested. The analysis established outcomes for service users and long-term impacts on families and children. It illustrated how these services are important in achieving more appropriate service responses, providing value for money to the NHS. Findings also relate to the definition of “social value” and “value for money”. Research limitations/implications – There is no common accepted method for identifying financial values for a number of the benefits identified in this analysis. By being transparent in how the analysis was carried out, the paper encourages further critical thinking in this area. Practical implications – Engaging commissioners in this type of analysis may assist them in the use of economic evaluation that includes social values as an input to decision making. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the understanding of “social value” and “value for money” in the context of public services. This is of importance given that the Social Value Act and “Open Public Services” reform are being implemented in the UK.

Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology to account for value for money of public health interventions: a systematic review

“…For the criterion ‘reflection of the result’, 19 studies discussed the limitations of the study. Eight studies did not conduct sensitivity analysis to test robustness of assumptions used in the conduct of the study [ 29 , 35 , 40 , 43 – 47 ]. However, all studies calculated and interpreted the resultant SROI ratio [Additional file 2 ].…”

“…Out of a maximum of 12 that could be achieved, quality scores ranged from 3 to 11 (median 9). Twelve public health SROI studies were considered to be of low quality [ 28 , 31 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 43 , 45 , 46 , 48 – 51 ], while the remaining 28 were of high quality [ 19 , 29 , 30 , 32 – 36 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 44 , 47 , 52 – 66 ]…”

“…Across public health areas, health promotion (12) [ 28 , 30 , 33 , 39 , 42 , 46 , 50 , 60 – 62 , 65 , 66 ] and mental health (11) [ 32 , 37 , 45 , 47 , 49 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 63 ] are areas in which the SROI methodology has been most applied. The methodology has also been applied in sexual and reproductive health (SRH) (6) [ 19 , 34 , 38 , 51 , 54 , 56 ], child health (4) [ 31 , 36 , 41 , 43 ], nutrition (3) [ 33 , 44 , 49 ] and to a smaller degree in health care management (2) [ 35 , 64 ], environmental health (1) [ 29 ] and health education (1) [ 40 ] [Table 3 ].…”

“…26 of the retrieved SROI studies were evaluative-type [ 29 – 36 , 40 , 42 – 46 , 49 – 55 , 60 , 61 , 63 – 65 ], while the other 14 were forecast-type SROI studies [ 28 , 37 – 41 , 47 , 48 , 56 – 59 , 62 , 66 ] [Table 3 ].…”

Using the Social Return on Investment Framework to Evaluate Behavior Changes of Individuals Living With Learning Difficulties

“…However, as discussed, it should not be considered in isolation. The provision of a monetary figure together with the richness of information gleaned from the participants can demonstrate where the social value (i.e., how society perceives the outcome of the intervention) originates from within an SM campaign; a premise which is supported by Arvidson, Battye and Salisbury (2014). This link between economic return and social value makes it an ideal way to communicate the benefits of the campaign (see also Maier, Schober, Simsa & Millner, 2015).…”