We’ve noticed you’re visiting from NZ. Click here to visit our NZS site.
We’ve noticed you’re visiting from NZ. Click here to visit our NZS site.
Social return on investment analysis you can take to funders
Sooner or later, you’ll face the question of what your programme's social results are worth in dollars. Our social return on investment (SROI) analysis gives you an investment case with a theory of change behind it and the evidence to support it. The number you present holds up to scrutiny.
Funders and central government increasingly want to understand measurable changes from social programmes, not just how many people it reached. We build the evidence with you and calculate the return, so you can answer with a number and the reasons behind it.
Social return on investment puts a dollar value on the social outcomes an initiative creates and compares that value against cost. The first step is always a theory of change. The second is a monitoring and evaluation framework that describes what you will measure, where the data will come from and how often it will be sampled. We then value the outcomes and calculate the return.
We do this as evaluators, not accountants. Interviews, case studies and evidence for each group you serve sit beside the numbers, so the ratio reflects real change for the people involved. The qualitative evidence also checks that the numbers still make sense.
A counterfactual to isolate your contribution. We model what would have happened without your programme and compare your outcomes against that scenario, so the return is yours and not what would have happened anyway.
A return for each group you serve. One average hides who gains most, so we model each group your programme serves separately and show what different groups get from the same investment.
Proxies from published sources. A proxy is a value that stands in for an outcome you cannot price directly. Ours come from three places: Treasury's cost-benefit analysis tool CBAx, which holds published values for social outcomes; the Australian Social Value Bank; and published research.
A plausibility check on the ratio. We check the result against the bands Treasury New Zealand advises. Between one and two is a realistic estimate. Between two and five, the costs and estimates need a second look. Above five, the assumptions must be very solid before the number can stand.
A method you can see. Our SROI methodology is public. Our guide and the spreadsheet tool we use are free to download, so your team can follow every step of the calculation.
Our approach runs from the programme logic to a ratio reported with its range. The five stages below show what happens at each step and what you receive.
What we deliver:
We start with the goal the analysis has to support and who it has to convince: a council, a funder, a board, a Minister. Then we work with your team to build or test the theory of change with the people you serve. Everything that follows rests on that theory.
We agree what to measure, which groups to model, and which proxies will stand for each outcome. If your data is thin, we find published evidence to fill the gap, and we keep the set of measures small enough for you to collect.
We review programme documents and administrative data, and interview participants, staff and partners. We collect outcome data and costs, including indirect costs such as volunteer hours. Then we model the counterfactual, value the outcomes and calculate the ratio for each group and for the whole.
We test the conclusion with you and your stakeholders, and run sensitivity analysis to find which variables move the result the most. Then we check the ratio against the plausibility bands before anything goes in the report.
You receive the report with the ratio, its range and the evidence behind it. The report is written for the council, funder or board it has to convince.
The measures come from the theory of change. For each group you serve, we choose the outcomes that matter most to the decision and that the evidence can support. Every measure must trace back to a change someone can point to.
We estimate deadweight, the share of the change that would have happened regardless, using a counterfactual model of any changes that would have occurred without your programme. We then adjust for attribution, the share that other organisations and outside factors contributed, and for displacement, benefits that other services working with the same people could claim. We keep outcomes distinct so nothing counts twice.
Yes. Some outcomes have no dollar value, and some should not have one. Those sit beside the ratio as qualitative evidence and value statements, and ensure that the numbers still describe what matters to the people involved. Interviews carry that part of the story.
Only by working with them: what outcomes should be measured and what is in scope may look different from within the community than from the outside. So, we involve the community and the people who work with them in building the logic from the start. If your programme works within a kaupapa Māori framework, we shape the logic around that framework, with its broader and interrelated outcomes. A single measure rarely captures an outcome like that, so we use a cluster of measures rather than forcing one indicator to carry it.
Yes, within limits: the simpler the method, the less weight the number can carry. The non-negotiable is a strong theory of change that says what you are trying to do and why you think it will work. Keep the measures targeted rather than ambitious and use published values if you cannot collect your own. We are happy to talk through what is possible without a full analysis.
Yes. The analysis sets out the logic for why you expect an impact and what that is likely to be. It also says how you will measure this impact as you go. If attribution is uncertain, a break-even analysis shows what’s needed for the programme to return its cost.
Some funders ask for an independent calculation. Doing it yourselves brings knowledge of the programme; using external organisations brings a fresh pair of eyes. Either way, watch for bias and record the assumptions you make, because the person reading the ratio will ask about them.