There is a thread of discussion about this elsewhere in 3s4 Forums:
http://www.3s4.org.uk/topics/340?forum_id=163
specifically about Social Return on Investment or SROI. It is in Member News - I am sorry I don't know the best way to link up the discussions! If anyone has answers to my practical concerns about SRoI I would be very glad to hear them.
I attended a seminar about Measuring Social Impact recently, and heard for the first time about the huge initiative that SRoI appears to be. I may not have all the facts right (so, apologies for that), but what I heard alarms me. My understanding is that SRoI "attempts" to quantify the savings that could be made by investing £1 in a charitable project - in other words, what Mark is trying to get to above. I completely agree that it is a laudable concept, but I am also deeply suspicious about whether it is possible to attempt it in a meaningful way or with any hope of accuracy. I understand that a lot of effort has gone in to developing complex models that attempt to do just that - but the variables are immense, and the chances of achieving a truly useful answer must surely be remote. However - the attraction of an SRoI "answer" is very obvious, and any charity that can afford the time and money to pay an accredited SRoI practitioner to calculate its SRoI will have a winning card in any competition for funding or support; because the funder will always be attracted to the notion of a scientifically calculated "saving" that arises from investing in that project. I am very worried that funding and support decisions will be made on the basis of who can afford to calculate their SRoI, and also those who can afford to pursue the answer to the nth degree in the quest for a spectacular saving. Intuitively, I just don't think it is possible to present "savings" so (apparently) accurately. I have read that SRoI numbers should not be taken as pure "fact", but it is human nature that they will be - what funder would decide in favour of a project that does not present its SRoI, compared to one that does? Or one that has an SRoI of £5, compared to one of £20? Subjectivity, policy change, uniqueness, technological change, the impact of averaging and assumptions - all these and more will have an impact on the SRoI result surely. Can anybody reassure me about my concerns?
Sally
There is a thread of discussion about this elsewhere in 3s4 Forums:
http://www.3s4.org.uk/topics/340?forum_id=163
specifically about Social Return on Investment or SROI. It is in Member News - I am sorry I don't know the best way to link up the discussions! If anyone has answers to my practical concerns about SRoI I would be very glad to hear them.
Sally
I attended a seminar about Measuring Social Impact recently, and heard for the first time about the huge initiative that SRoI appears to be. I may not have all the facts right (so, apologies for that), but what I heard alarms me. My understanding is that SRoI "attempts" to quantify the savings that could be made by investing £1 in a charitable project - in other words, what Mark is trying to get to above. I completely agree that it is a laudable concept, but I am also deeply suspicious about whether it is possible to attempt it in a meaningful way or with any hope of accuracy. I understand that a lot of effort has gone in to developing complex models that attempt to do just that - but the variables are immense, and the chances of achieving a truly useful answer must surely be remote. However - the attraction of an SRoI "answer" is very obvious, and any charity that can afford the time and money to pay an accredited SRoI practitioner to calculate its SRoI will have a winning card in any competition for funding or support; because the funder will always be attracted to the notion of a scientifically calculated "saving" that arises from investing in that project. I am very worried that funding and support decisions will be made on the basis of who can afford to calculate their SRoI, and also those who can afford to pursue the answer to the nth degree in the quest for a spectacular saving. Intuitively, I just don't think it is possible to present "savings" so (apparently) accurately. I have read that SRoI numbers should not be taken as pure "fact", but it is human nature that they will be - what funder would decide in favour of a project that does not present its SRoI, compared to one that does? Or one that has an SRoI of £5, compared to one of £20? Subjectivity, policy change, uniqueness, technological change, the impact of averaging and assumptions - all these and more will have an impact on the SRoI result surely. Can anybody reassure me about my concerns?