Growing social capital – an SROI
calculation of the impact of VCS activities
funded by grant aid in Kirklees
Trudi Wright
November 2012
Background
 Kirklees hosted an 18 month project exploring how
community capacity building activities (CCB) can
support service transformation and market
development with the introduction of personal budgets
 Significance of social capital and CCB in helping
people achieve improved outcomes in health and
wellbeing – and that it is more cost efficient
 Still need to improve how we evidence the impact /
outcome of investment in the VCS
 National interest (DH and TLAP) in evaluating
outcomes and implications for the prevention agenda
Problems with measurement
 Financial measurement: limited measurement of




value
We allocate resources only to the things we can
measure
Stakeholders are left out of the equation
So the challenge is to find an alternative that
measures in a wider, more meaningful way
Social Return on Investment =
Value of benefits
Investment
How can SROI help us?
 An adjusted form of cost-benefit-analysis to help us
understand value for money (looks forward or back)
 Outcomes based evaluation: Measures things
that matter – not just those that are easy to count
 Values things that can’t be ‘traded’ (self-esteem,
independence, trust and belonging)
 Helps bring social and environmental value onto
the balance sheet – the ‘triple bottom line’
• USP is that it looks at changes, benefits and outcomes
from the perspective of the beneficiaries – not just the
funder / commissioner
Stages of SROI
 Engage stakeholders to identify outcomes
 Data collection:
 Numbers to match the words and change that’s
created (the outcomes)
 Deadweight, attribution, displacement
 Benefit period and drop off
 Model and calculate
 Valuation of non-traded outcomes
 Report
 7 guiding principles to ensure a robust and
consistent outcome – but there are still dubious
SROI reports ‘out there’ – be cautious!
3 x Kirklees case studies
 Different activities – same scale organisations
 3 wouldn’t evidence a hypothesis, but would highlight
common features and emerging patterns
 Stakeholder engagement to build an impact map and
‘theory of change’
 Rich tapestry of outcomes captured through focus
groups and interviews
 Common characteristics emerging across the 3
different organisations
 Similarities in outcomes to go forward in SROI
 Emerging importance of social capital in contributing
to people’s wellbeing
Impact Map for building community capacity /
growing social capital at The Nerve Centre
Special attributes &
features emerging
Mobilising
resources
Harnassing
people’s assets
How it’s
done
Anticipating &
responding
More accessible and
responsive services
Sense of
purpose
Respect
Reduced
isolation
Positive selfesteem
Condition management
Income
generation &
fundraising
Positive
role models
Sense of
belonging
Greater
trust
Recognition of and
pride in achievement
Making friends
Connecting
people/members
Service delivery
& activities
Self-sufficient
New experiences
and skills
Growing motivation
and confidence
More
tolerance
Emerging impact map TNC
Annecdotes / descriptor from
stakeholder engagement
•Helped my recovery
•Improved access to info and
understanding of condition
•More acceptance of my condition (and
the condition of others)
•Fewer GP visits
•Better able to cope
•More self-sufficient
•More vitality
•Supported by others
•Put problems in perspective / less
baggage
•Better movement / physical wellbeing
•Gained new skills
•Pride and sense of achievement
•Sense of anticipation
•More confidence
•Feelings of self-worth/self-belief
•Take more notice of things
•Looking ahead not back
•Less anxiety/depression
•Feeling normal / no stigma
•Less isolated and bored
•Connected to others
•Care about others and cared for /
about
Interim indicators / outcomes
Final / longer term outcomes
Better condition
management
Improved / increased
independence
More resiliance
Increased confidence
and self-esteem
Positive outlook /
motivation
Made & sustained
friendships
Improved mental and
emotional wellbeing
Reduced isolation & / or
increased belonging
(trust and respect)
1
Evidencing the outcomes - what
contributes to wellbeing?
Emerging impact map TNC members
Interim outcomes
Final / longer term outcomes
Better condition
management
Improved / increased
independence
More resilience
Increased confidence
and self-esteem
Positive outlook /
motivation
Improved mental and
emotional wellbeing
Made & sustained
friendships
Reduced isolation & /
or increased belonging
(trust and respect)
NAWB Components
Autonomy
Competence
Self-esteem
Self-esteem
Resilience
Autonomy
Meaning and purpose
Engagement
Supportive relationships
Trust and belonging
1
European Social Survey
THE NERVE CENTRE: WELLBEING COMPOSITE INDICATORS AND QUESTIONS – FAMILIES AND CARERS
Well-being component
Optimism: Feeling optimistic about your future.
Resilience: Being able to deal with life’s difficulties.
Well-being
outcome
Resilience
and Selfesteem
Ways of measuring: Example question from European
Social Survey
I’m always optimistic about my future (agree –
disagree)
When things go wrong in my life it general takes me a
long time to get back to normal (agree – disagree)
In my daily life I am free to decide how to live my life
(agree – disagree)
Autonomy: Feeling free to do what you want and having the time to do it.
Positive
Functioning
In my daily life, I seldom have time to do the things I
really enjoy (agree – disagree)

Supportive Relationships: The extent and quality of interactions in close
relationships with family, friends and others who provide support.
Supportive
Relationships



Trust and Belonging: Trusting other people, being treated fairly and respectfully by
them, and feeling a sense of belonging with and support from people where you live.
Trust and
Belonging

How much of the time spent with your immediate
family is enjoyable? (scale 0 – 6)
How much of the time spent with your immediate
family is stressful? (scale 0 – 6)
There are people in my life who really care about
me (agree – disagree)
To what extent do you feel that people in your local
area help one another? (scale 0 – 6)
I feel close to people in my local area (agree –
disagree)
Conclusions and lessons learned
 Data collection stage then financial modelling
 SROI ratios:
 TNC £1:£1.99
 DDC £1:£1.94
 Meltham S&CG £1:£2.75
 Many interim and longer term outcomes are ‘under the
radar’ or not routinely captured by traditional monitoring or
evaluation (by organisations and funders)
 Notwithstanding the ‘financial valuing’work there are many
benefits from looking to improve how we gather this wealth
of outcomes information
 …..and how it helps inform future investment decisions
 SROI isn’t the solution for all – but the more we do it – the
more powerful it will prove
Benefits for commissioners / funders
 More insight into the impact of social capital activities
helps shift investment into preventative services
 Reducing people’s dependency on high cost / high value services
 People more independent and inter-dependent when they build their
own social networks, i.e. less reliance on the state
 Helps identify the financial value of the wider
outcomes generated by this type of work (for others,
not just service users)
 There’s a good business case: it’s VFM
 Importance of co-production and an asset based
approach to developing health and wellbeing
outcomes in each organisation’s Theory of Change
Benefits for VCO’s and groups
 By understanding the wider value they’re generating
from their services / activities, it builds a strong
business case for securing future investment
 If more can ‘tell their story’ and evidence / articulate
their own Theory of Change, they might:
 Develop new services or income streams that grow
social capital
 Build an outcomes based business model
 Put in place more systematic ways of gathering this
evidence with their vols and service users
Where are we now in Kirklees?
 Recent budget pressures along with the new legislation




has pushed this back up the agenda
We need to evaluate SV and balance against other VFM
considerations
 As supply reduces, price (or the value of goods and
services) increases
 i.e. when there’s less money available to fund public
services, the more important it is to capture and
measure the full value of our investments
So we need to move beyond a narrow definition of VFM
or cost benefit analysis
Without taking SV into account in the way we buy and
appraise services we are costing up much of this ‘added
value’ at zero
We now need to turn the talking into action
Progress along a number of fronts
 Building on the SROI work to inform a shared ABCD





approach to measuring outcomes across the council
Recognised NAWB framework as a very useful way
to explain the wider impact of a range of different
services, i.e. the social value of our investments
Many tools and techniques of SROI apply to SV
So we’re encouraging services to develop their own
‘theory of change’ and Impact Maps to inform annual
service planning
Where SV is directly relevant or proportionate to
their service, SV to be incorporated in procurement
Developing tools to compare and contrast different
submissions
SROI in practice
“A first step could be for charities to specify and
measure their desired outcomes (which deliver
value to society, rather than just outputs)…
This will require our best creative thinking and
force us to really look at what we set out to
achieve and what we actually achieve. We will
have to build new skills and ask ourselves new
questions but the rewards will be enormous.”
 Measuring Social Value; the gap between
policy and practice, Demos 2010
For more information
 Trudi Wright, Project Manager, Kirklees Council
trudi.wright@kirklees.gov.uk (07980 911 654)
 www.nef-consulting.co.uk/sroi
 www.thesroinetwork.org