Social Value UK

Tag: SROI analysis

  • Arabic Translation of Guide to SROI

    Arabic Translation of Guide to SROI

    The Arabic translation of the Social Return on Investment (SROI) Guide is up! Completed as a partnership between Social Value International and Sustainable Square, the translation aims to serve as a guiding reference for Arab practitioners to further promote the concept of calculating social value within the region.

    “It’s fantastic that The Guide to SROI is now available in Arabic. We have seen increased interest in this area over the last couple of years and this will really help people engage. I would especially like to thank Eric and his team for all their work getting this out.”
    Jeremy Nicholls, CEO, Social Value

    “Based on our interactions with organizations in the Middle East over the last 3 years, we have seen increasing appetite for having tools that can help monitor, evaluate and
    measure the impact of their contributions to the society. Producing the Arabic version of the SROI guideline will help spreading the practice amongst Arabic speakers, players that
    are designing and managing programs in developing communities.”
    Monaem Ben Lellahom, Global Founding Partner, Sustainable Square.

    Organisations within the region are continuing to shift from the Ad-hoc approach towards CSR practices to strategic design of programs to optimise value. However, the region still has room to grow in the monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of the programs and in sharing resources in order to grow the social sector. Considering social impact and understanding what really changes in an initiative, is still a new technical approach for organisations to formally embrace. With the newly translated text, we look forward to seeing more Arab practitioners integrating SROI into their monitoring and evaluations, developing localised case practices relevant to the region, and promote the concepts of social investment and social value.

     

    Download Guide in Arabic

     

    Press Contacts

    Fatima Alattar
    falattar@sustainablesquare.com

  • Impact Reports – Must Haves!

    Impact Reports – Must Haves!

    Ten things you should be looking for when reading an impact report.  A blog by Christina Berry-Moorcroft, Social Value UK Communications and Membership Coordinator.

    Here at Social Value UK we are incredibly proud of our Reports Database, at last count it had nearly 700 reports relating to social value in there for you to peruse and learn from. The reports database is made up of SROI reports, assured and non-assured, social impact reports and cost benefit analysis reports. So whatever sector you work in, whatever level of riguer you’re working at and whatever you need examples of, you can find it in one place. But, what if you’re not sure what you’re looking for, or at? We know that many people like to read impact reports before setting off on their own, so to make the process easier we’ve compiled a handy list of ten things you should be looking for. We hope it helps!

     

    What is it for?
    What is the report you are reading for? Who’s the intended audience? What are they hoping to communicate and/or achieve with this report? If this is immediately clear, then great, keep this in mind throughout the rest of the report. If it isn’t, then this may not be the end of the transparency issues…

    What has and has not been included?
    Have the authors been completely transparent about what has and hasn’t been included? Have they also explained how they came to their decisions about what was and was not material? At this point, it’s also wise to check that the report uses enough data, that it’s representative and that the authors have considered all possible biases. If a report isn’t inclusive of all of these things then there’s a fear the authors of the report are over-claiming, meaning they may be claiming the value of activities they were not a part of creating.

    Is this an output or outcome?

    What’s an outcome? What’s an output? What’s the difference? This can all too often be confused when people start measuring their impact but it’s vital that we aren’t claiming outputs as outcomes if we are to avoid over claiming. An output is a way of describing the activity in relation to each stakeholder’s inputs in quantitative terms, for example the staff who work on the project or the hours a volunteer put into the project. Outcomes are the changes resulting from an activity. The main types of change from the perspective of stakeholders are unintended (unexpected) and intended (expected), but more on that later. For now, ask yourself, has the report you’re reading made clear the difference between outputs and outcomes? We have produced some supplementary guidance on well-defined outcomes that will help.

    Who decides what?
    The Principles of Social Value provide the basic building blocks for anyone who wants to make decisions that take this wider definition of value into account, in order to increase equality, improve wellbeing and increase environmental sustainability. The first principle is the underpinning for all of the following six, and one that you must not forget when reading or writing an impact report! Principle One is Involve Stakeholders and we define stakeholders as people, organisations or entities that experience change, whether positive or negative, as a result of the activity that is being analysed. Were stakeholders involved? And importantly, were they involved in identifying and valuing outcomes? No two outcomes are equal to stakeholders, have the authors shown how they decided which outcomes were more valuable?

    What about stakeholder segmentation?
    Unless the only people impacted by your activities are the exact same in every way: age, gender, socio-economic status, health, relationship status, family set-up, and so on, and that’s highly unlikely, then not including stakeholder segmentation is a massive flaw. Segmentation is the process of looking at different groups of stakeholders, based on anything that makes them different from another group of stakeholders. Each type of stakeholder will have different outcomes, and indeed different valuations for those outcomes, and if the report you are reading hasn’t taken that into account then they could be over-claiming!

    Is it all positive impacts?
    The report you’re reading may be full of positive impacts, in fact we hope it is, we fully believe that measuring and maximising social value will lead to a more equal, more just and more sustainable planet for us all. However, every project, despite how great it’s theory of change is, will have negative impacts, it’s unavoidable. So has the report you’re looking at made allowances for that? Have they asked stakeholders what those were? Have they put measures in place to reduce these? Are they improving their work next time based on this? These are all questions you should be looking for the answers to when reading an impact report.

    And what about the change we didn’t mean to cause?
    Much like with point four, another key thing to look out for is whether the report lists the unintended outcomes of the project. If a report just states the intended outcomes, then they have only looked at, and asked stakeholders about the project objectives. This doesn’t give a full overview of the project, could be neglecting significant impact and is stunting future project improvement based on impact data. Examples of intended outcomes could be increased confidence, a secure job or reduced isolation, whereas as an unintended outcome could be that attendees on a course suffer a reduction in self worth for not doing as well as their classmates. That’s not to say that unintended outcomes are always negative, organisations often create lots of social value that they aren’t accounting for, listing unintended outcomes makes sure this isn’t happening and allows for project design based on all of the information.

    How much of this change can they claim?
    So the authors of the report have considered all of the outcomes, based on the opinions of their segmented stakeholders, they’ve looked at intended and unintended outcomes and considered both positive and negative change, that’s all right? Well, not quite. In order to not overclaim (Principle 5) and be transparent  (Principle 6) then the authors should have also calculated the likelihood of what would have happened to the stakeholders anyway, without their action and what other actors (organisations, people, interventions) may have played a part in the change experienced by a stakeholder. We call this considering the counterfactual and attribution. If 100% of a change is claimed it’s not only not true, it’s a little foolish and means the author is over-claiming, which means their project isn’t as successful as they claim it is, which means they are missing valuable opportunities to make it better!

    Is this important?
    Have the authors of this report demonstrated that they undertook a process of determining what information and evidence must be included in the accounts to give a true and fair picture? Some information is important is material and some is not, has this been considered? Enough information should be included so that stakeholders can draw reasonable conclusions about impact. On top of this, has the information been ranked with relative importance, and importantly, were stakeholders consulted on this?

    Can I trust this logic?
    One thing to consistently consider with impact reports is transparency (Principle 6), authors of impact reports should demonstrate the basis on which the analysis may be considered accurate and honest, and show that it will be reported to and discussed with stakeholders. Have they? And finally, but crucially, have they sought independent assurance of their impact data, assumptions and reports? Verifying the result (Principle 7) is crucial, and shows a mark of quality. You can search our Reports Database for only assured reports, to ensure you are reading reports that have met the standards we require, and find information on the assurance and accreditation services we offer on our website.


    For further information on conducting social value measurement please see     ‘The Guide to SROI’ and supplementary guidance. We offer a range of support services, including mentoring, that can support you further.

    What are your top tips for reading, or writing impact reports? Do you have advice for other community members? We would love to hear your thoughts!

  • Capturing All Voices in Impact Assessment

    Capturing All Voices in Impact Assessment

    This is a guest blog by member Clare Hammond on her social value work with The Yard Scotland. Clare works for Rocket Science UK Ltd. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

    We have been working with The Yard Scotland and their community since June 2016. The Yard provides safe play spaces and respite for young people with disabilities and their families. During our time with The Yard, we conducted a Social Return on Investment and Cost Benefit Analysis to be able to evidence and quantify the impact their service has on families and how much they save other service providers such as the Local Authority.

    For Rocket Science, the voice of the service user should be present, loud and clear, and the central driving force for any impact analysis. Social researchers the world around can talk to you about sampling sizes, interview techniques, and running a great focus group to get that voice. However, social impact research gets slightly more complicated when service users are less able to engage with the more traditional research processes.

    Engaging extensively with The Yard’s young people and families as part of this research has been very important to both Rocket Science and The Yard Scotland. To do this we have had to use less conventional methods of social research – and we have learnt a few things along the way: We’ve learnt a few things along the way about how to approach impact analysis using less conventional methods:

    • Co-design with The Yard of all research activities was vital. As consultants, we brought expertise in evaluation disciplines, analytical processes and robustness. However, it’s The Yard that knows its client group inside and out. Bringing together this expertise was vitally important, particularly in designing and delivering the research activities with their young adventurers.
    • Abandoning the traditional – for the young adventurers we knew we couldn’t use traditional research techniques. Instead we embraced what made The Yard so great – play! We kept it simple– we had two questions we needed answering. Then we developed a range of play activities that young people could engage with…ever conducted an interview on a go-kart? It’s exhilarating.
    • Understanding the impact of the service on families was much harder than we expected. Parents and families of these young adventurers are so used to constantly being the advocate for their child. They are some of the most selfless people we have engaged with. For our research – getting parents to think about themselves was difficult. We overcame this in two ways:
    1. We needed to make it clear to parents that this was a space for them to talk about themselves as well as their children. Using colourful post-it notes we put all messages relating to their children on one wall, and messages relating to themselves as individuals on another wall. As expected, the wall of messages about their children filled up fast, while their own wall remained largely empty. We then set them the challenge of filling their wall to be as colourful as the wall about their children. Highlighting their selflessness visually, and colourfully proved to be very effective.
    2. Once again, we embraced The Yard’s motto – fun! We needed to convert outcomes such as friendship and relaxation into monetary values. We chose to use Choice Modelling – which, I promise, is as dull as it sounds if done with no humour. So with fun, laughter and a joke or two we had groups of parents and carers giving us their honest views of what was important to them as individuals as well as their family.

    Our time with The Yard has been rewarding, enlightening and a lot of fun. There aren’t many researchers that get to say they got to play with paints, bikes and swings for work! The Yard are now armed with robust evidence of their impact to use with the policy makers and funders. With this information, they intend to influence the design of services and expand their services further across Scotland.

    For more information on Social Value, and the Social Value Principles see here.

  • Social Value – A nice-to-have or building blocks?

    Social Value – A nice-to-have or building blocks?

    This is a guest blog by member Emma Back on social value in start-ups. This is part of the Member Exchange Series. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

    It is a rare event for Day One of operation for a new charity or social enterprise to coincide with Day One of its social value strategy. The much more common scenario is for consideration of social value to be piecemeal and sporadic, like writing about it for a funding application or while at a workshop. Many people I’ve met who are starting social ventures don’t even know what it is and for those who do know, the motivation to measure and to analyse impact is low priority – a nice-to-have but a non-essential. This is understandable – resources are very tight and ‘the impact of social impact’ is not immediately visible if you’re still in the early stages of your venture.

    At the Social Value Members Exchange in November, I heard a lot of stories about organisations which had increased their income, designed new services and deepened their impact purely as a result of paying attention to social value. It’s still too easy for these stories to be lost or ignored by emerging ventures. However, I believe social value is a powerful strategic and operational toolkit which creates its biggest influence while ideas and services are still taking shape – early stage companies and charities are missing out.

    I’ve noticed in my online and offline tours of social enterprise start-up resources that social value information is always cordoned off into a separate section (“so now that we’ve considered your business plan, your competition, your finances and your customers, let’s talk about social value”). This feels wrong and off-putting. The various tools and stages of social value fit very naturally into the chronology of starting a business. Instead of being its own thing, with its own set of separate, intensive resource requirements sitting on top of the normal tasks involved in setting up a business or charity, what if we ask the question, how can social value slot into the normal activities of a start-up?

    Here are some conversation starters:

    Social value as business model

    Of course, the theory of change plays a starring role here. Designing mission and goals using the theory as your framework has, in my experience, been the most succinct way of pinning down just exactly what I want the service to do and to achieve. It is a short-cut to creating a results-oriented business plan which doesn’t waffle.

    Social value as motivator

    I’m right at the beginning of my business idea. This can be lonely and tough at times. My understanding of social value means I’m recognising stakeholder impact as it occurs even though the service hasn’t ‘started’ yet. I’ve moved from seeing the problem and my future solution to seeing what changes for people, whoever they are and whatever stage the business is at.

    Social value as quality management tool

    KPIs versus outcome indicators. Need I say more?! What’s lacking is a demonstration of how it can double up to serve existing certifications, for example, ISO9001 or Investors in People, or simply as your monitoring framework for funders. More usually, advice on your social value indicators focuses on sitting alongside a broader system, not integrating with it.

    Social value as service designer

    Has anyone else noticed the deep affinity between the world of service design and that of social value? Both use ‘Engage stakeholders’ as their core mantras and both have a predilection for mapping – for finding the hidden linkages between service goals, activities and real outcomes. By combining techniques from both, some very powerful stories can emerge.

    For example, we could combine customer journey / experience mapping with the theory of change and an outcomes value map. Take a look at the Intuit experience map and the smily faces – this reminds me of intermediate outcomes… Stick values onto these stages together with the numbers of customers who reach them and you get the start of an accessible SROI analysis – one which offers great visibility for improving the positives and minimising the negatives in your service.

    There are so many business elements where social value has something to offer (marketing, financial management, competition analysis etc). The difficulty start-ups face with social value is not to do with resources. It’s to do with the way the story of social value is being told at the moment. It’s still viewed as a bolt-on, an optional extra worth 5% of a commissioning exercise or an additional section in your business plan. It’s more work. But how wonderful would it be we could demonstrate a way for social value activities and tools to be woven into the natural activities of any new social enterprise or charity? Social Value Principles and methods could become the DNA of our future organisations, not the extra box on the form.


    This is part of the Members Exchange Series, for more information, see here.

  • Collaboration for SROI

    Collaboration for SROI

    This is a guest blog by member Lynn Sbaih on collaboration between smaller organisations. This is part of the Member Exchange Series. Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

    In November 2016 I attended the Social Value Members Exchange by Social Value UK, whilst here I hosted a round table table on collaboration between smaller organisations on SROI’s and funding bids. This discussion came about as a result of a some of us exploring, at a regional meeting, how small community groups are attempting to use SROI to acquire funding. We identified that many community groups are keen to identify their group’s SROI, and how this can be articulated in terms of a financial value. This can then provide commissioners and other funders with evidence of why it is worth investing in them, as a group. However, a number of attendees also identified that arriving at and articulating a SROI value may become problematic, particularly if group members cannot provide detail of how they arrived at their identified SROI value.

    The round table discussion touched on some of these issues, and attendees were also able to share some of their insights into working with small community groups. Insights included: how small groups can and should seek funding; how groups can collect information to help tell ‘tell their story’; the value of ‘the story’ and the ways in which funders view social value. In particular, the role of the stakeholder was discussed, and how important stakeholders are in enabling a group to collect meaningful information that may help them articulate their value to funders. This then raised some questions about who are the stakeholders, for small groups, and how do they get to meet and talk with them. This was viewed as particularly problematic for those groups that spend most of their time delivering services to local people and communities. It was observed, that, for such groups, they may have little time or energy to consider the wider issues of achieving SROI and funding. This led to a discussion about how small groups could come together in a community collaboration, where they can use their combined skills and knowledge to identify and manage all the aspects of what is needed to recognise and articulate their social value to funders. This then raised the question of learning and training and how this can be made possible for small community group members.

    Overall, we had a comprehensive and wide ranging discussion, with a range of shared stories and experiences from Round Table attendees, about the challenges facing small community groups as they adopt SROI approaches. Many of our questions where not answered. However, I think we all left our round table with plenty to think about. What are your thoughts?

    This is part of the Members Exchange Series, for more information, see here.

  • Impact management is a state of mind!

    Impact management is a state of mind!

    This is a blog by Ben Carpenter, Operations Manager, Social Value UK.

    There’s a slight change in the air… You may have heard it whispered on the grapevines… “Impact Management” is the phrase on everyone’s lips. No longer are people talking about impact measurement. Now, the word on the street is ‘impact management’! Now this may seem like a very subtle change and perhaps not one that warrants a blog. However, I do want to pick up on this nuance in language. I do think it’s worth a blog and I do think I’m justified in feeling quite excited about it. I want to share with you why this could be the start of a significant shift in thinking and practice for the social sector.

    Look up measurement in the dictionary and it’s defined as “the act of measuring something”; “the size, length, or amount of something”; and; “a unit or system of measuring”. That sounds about right. For years we’ve all been fixated on the measurement of social impact. Is this the right way to measure an ‘outcome’? What’s the best tool/system for measuring this outcome? Look how much impact we’ve had this year?!

    In truth, when I walk into a room and say “Impact measurement” people’s eyes roll, there are groans or if I’m lucky perhaps a polite resigned sigh. “Yes we do it.” But ‘it’ has become a chore, in many instances; measurement is seen as something that has to be done. It’s part of the charade of proving impact to ensure funding continues. For so many; ‘measurement’ and collecting information has become an onerous and often meaningless task.

    What difference will a shift in language make?

    So why am I excited that swapping measurement for management will be any different? Back to the dictionary… Management is defined as “The process of dealing with or controlling things”. Whilst I don’t love the word ‘control’, this immediately sounds much more practical and worthwhile. No longer are we measuring for the sake of measuring. Management to me means ‘making decisions’ and let’s throw in another M word: maximising a situation. So perhaps the new questions will be: ‘how can we have more impact?’ or ‘are we creating the most impact we can with the resources we have?’

    If I walk into a room and say words like ‘agile’, ‘iterative design process’ and (wait for it…) ‘pivot’ people’s eyes light up! (OK it helps if the room is full of ‘lean start up’ types or those who are comfortable with a culture of change). The lean start up movement is all about using information to make decisions about design. Let’s build something, collect information to see if this is working, learn from it and re-design. If you read Eric Reis (whose book the Lean start-up has achieved almost biblical status amongst entrepreneurs) the emphasis is on finding one or two bespoke metrics (not standardised) that can quickly give you the information you need to validate your model or help you re-design to make sure you are maximising your success. This is management, not just measurement.

    OK, before you typecast me with full on hipster beard and shout “Oi! You’re not in silicon valley now mate!” let’s just root this in the context of the social sector: UK charities and social enterprises. I think it’s completely possible and the time is right for these social purpose organisations to start adopting a ‘management’ approach to impact. (Check out Acumen’s recent Lean Data initiative.) Success to a charity or a social enterprise will not be measured with financial profit but that doesn’t stop them from behaving in the same way: using information to inform decisions about programme design to maximise their social impact. This is management.

    The crowd who are sick and tired of collecting information for measurement sake are understandably bored. Nothing ever comes of this data collection. A (soon to be published) piece of research from Social Value UK finds that most organisations do nothing with the impact information they’ve collected. What if suddenly staff at charities and social enterprises were collecting information that was being used to inform decisions and change the way services are delivered? I reckon it wouldn’t seem like a chore anymore.

    Isn’t it easier said than done?

    Quick wins?

    There are some small changes that charities and social enterprises can do very easily that can make a big difference: Make data collection less formal. It’s the form filling, questionnaires and rigidity that kills it. Start having conversations. Regularly sit down with beneficiaries (and other people who are affected by your work) and ask them simple questions like:

    What has changed for you? Was that expected? Has anything else happened? What did that lead to? Out of all of these changes, which is the most important to you? Would that have happened anyway? Who else has helped with this?

    Collect the results of these conversations and discuss them at team meetings! Regularly. It won’t be long until you have a rich picture of the changes that are happening (good and bad) and what’s important to people and probably how you can change things to make it better. This to me is management.

    If anyone says they don’t have the time or the resources to do that, they’re talking nonsense. Charities and social enterprises should be talking to their stakeholders and they should be having internal staff meetings. The new questions may lead to some uncomfortable answers but let’s face it – asking beneficiaries to complete mundane questionnaires is equally as uncomfortable. Trust me I’ve been there.

    This doesn’t sound very rigorous?

    Perhaps it’s time we stopped worrying about rigour when it comes to impact measurement. The parallels with highly rigorous academic evaluation are not healthy and if you look at businesses; low levels of rigour is used frequently to support decisions. (Low levels of rigour often better than nothing) As someone one said to me… “it’s about enough precision for the decision”

    I don’t think my funder will like this!

    You’d be surprised. Most investors I’ve spoken to would love to see a ‘management’ approach by their investees. Access Foundation and Power to Change have recently launched an Impact Management Programme that we are very excited about being part of. Bridges Ventures are a world leading impact investor and have recently published a report titled ‘More than Measurement, A practitioner’s journey to Impact Management.’ And it was a grant maker Nominet Trust that have done some excellent work around lean social metrics and instilled a mantra of: ‘a learning organisation is an effective organisation’. I encourage more funders/investors to be bold enough to move away from shared measurement frameworks and look for evidence of their investments collecting useful information, being agile and responsive to change. (Let’s talk about aggregation another day.)

    If I was an investor, above anything else, I would want to know that my investees are collecting information that is useful. Perhaps the only metric I would be interested in is “How many changes have you made to your service/product based on impact information?”

    I am genuinely excited about a shift to a more management approach to collecting impact information. For the measurement professionals and geeks out there (myself included) there are some technical changes required around what questions to ask, how to analyse qualitative information and then extrapolate that with quantitative data. Rest assured, those blogs will be coming over the next few months. The key thing is that impact management is ultimately about creating a culture within an organisation. A culture that is brave enough to ask the tough questions, listen to stakeholders and embrace change. Impact Management is a state of mind.

     

    Find out more about the work SVUK are doing with NPC and other partners: NCVO/CES, SEUK, SIB, Young Foundation and Impetus PEF by subscribing to the Access Impact newsletter.

     

  • The Seven Principles of Maximising Social Value

    The Seven Principles of Maximising Social Value

    This month we published a new report “The Seven Principles of Social Value, and why they are important for accountability and maximising social value”, that is available for free on our online resource library.

    Social Value is the value that stakeholders experience through changes in their lives. Some, but not all of this value is captured in market prices.

    The Principles of Social Value provide the basic building blocks for anyone who wants to make decisions that take this wider definition of value into account, in order to increase equality, improve well being and increase environmental sustainability. They are generally accepted social accounting principles.

    The Principles are not individually remarkable; they have been drawn from principles underlying social accounting and audit, sustainability reporting, cost benefit analysis, financial accounting, and evaluation practice. There are other guides available on the process of measuring and reporting social value and impact that also refer to principles, such as the Social Investment Taskforce Guidelines for Good Impact Practice. However, the Principles of Social Value can be distinguished by their focus on what underpins an account of social value, and on the questions that need to be addressed so that the information can be used to better inform decisions.

    The Principles were originally developed in 2009 and were updated in 2015 following the merger of the SROI Network and the Social Impact Analysts Association. This new report from Social Value UK explains the thinking that underpins these Principles.

    Please read the report here and let us know what you think in the comments section.

  • The SROI of Santa Claus

    The SROI of Santa Claus

    This is a guest blog by Andy Bagley, an Accredited SROI Practitioner and Director of Real-Improvement, a business consultancy based in Leeds. It is cross-posted from Andy’s original blog post here. You can also follow Andy on Twitter at @andy_bagley1.

     

    This blog has changed. I had planned a spoof Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis of Santa Claus. As well as happy children, this was to include outcomes such as elf employment, reindeer fitness and income for sleigh suppliers (not to mention the inevitable “elf and safety”). But influenced in part by Dr Adam Richards’ excellent blog on The Value of Christmas, a slightly more serious question occurred to me: why do we keep the myth of Santa Claus alive?

    Here I must apologise to anyone who still believes in Santa Claus (there may be children reading!). But if we accept that the fantasy version of Santa Claus − as opposed to the historical St Nicholas − actually doesn’t exist, what is the value in perpetuating the myth? Why do we bother?

    True to SROI, we first have to define scope: I’m referring to the annual activities of the jolly gentleman in red who delivers presents to all of the good children in the world in a single night. Stakeholders for this illusion will of course be the children themselves, their families, and yes, there is a commercial aspect to it as well – many businesses profit from the season.

    SROI demands consultation – we shouldn’t just assume. But it’s a pretty safe bet that for children Santa Claus forms part of the fantasy and magic of Christmas, something that helps to bring joy at a special time of year. And the presents themselves certainly help. We hope too that it helps to bring families together, sharing time and strengthening relationships.

    The main investment for this return is the cost (to parents) of the presents themselves – plus a modest outlay for Christmas stockings and perhaps some doorstep refreshments for Santa and his reindeer. Not forgetting the time involved in buying, wrapping, hiding the presents and so forth. Which brings us to negative outcomes – again something that SROI insists we consider.

    Arguably the greatest negative is the financial burden that Christmas imposes on those who cannot afford it, combined with the disappointment of those children who have a poor Christmas as a result. Some will also argue that the true spirit of Christmas has been lost in a tide of commercialism. And unfortunately Christmas is not a time of joy for everyone: it’s well known for example that post-Christmas is a peak time for marital and family break-ups, as stress takes its toll.

    Of course, Santa Claus isn’t personally responsible for all of this. He makes a contribution to it, and this is what SROI considers under the heading of Attribution: how much of these changes (positive and negative) can we attribute to the fun figure himself as opposed to the many other elements that make up Christmas? A small but still significant part, I suggest.

    I haven’t attempted a valuation of these various pros and cons or a full calculation of the SROI ratio, although in theory this could be done. On balance I believe the ratio would be positive, supporting the continued Santa Claus myth, though with the proviso of “could do better still”. Like all SROI analyses, the real value lies in the learning rather than the SROI ratio itself. So what could we do better still?

    This is where the ‘numbers game’ of SROI meets reality. We could surely boost the SROI of Santa Claus by bringing the positive outcomes to more people, and reducing the negatives associated with poverty and hardship. That’s why I support charities that bring something of Christmas (irrespective of religious context) to disadvantaged children and their families here and abroad. Even in difficult times, there’s a message there that someone cares.

    And by the way, please don’t tell me that Santa Claus doesn’t exist.

     

    @andy_bagley1    |    www.real-improvement.com