Mary lee rhodes - impact indicators

Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action 8 March 2013

Measuring Social Impact: Looking for Inspiration

Mary Lee Rhodes Trinity College Dublin


What’s the problem?

1)  Philanthropists, Government and Citizens are looking for ways to allocate scarce resources for maximum benefit

2)  GDP as a measure of social ‘progress’ has been roundly criticised

3)  A plethora of new proposals for measuring social progress have been mooted – no generally accepted standard as yet.

4)  Measurement approaches highly subjective


Sources of ‘inspiration’

•  performance objectives and outcomes measures as critical components of public service systems

•  Rise of ‘Beyond GDP’ (‘well-being’) social progress indicators

•  Research into housing ‘system’ in Ireland •  Board membership on Housing-related Non-profits and

Government agencies •  Practical and Academic challenge of Social Impact

analysis / reporting •  Need for credible measures of Social Return for

emerging social finance market


What is social impact?

•  Measuring cost-benefit: the production of social value (‘benefit’) that is greater/less than the resources (‘cost’) required to produce it (Arvidson et al, Bagnoli & Megali, Emerson et al, Gordon, Tuan)

•  Social value: change in the conditions of (targeted groups of) human beings in specified areas, e.g., health, education, housing, employment, environment (Ashoka, REDF, GIIN – see IRIS database)

•  Resources: financial, human, political, environmental, legitimacy assets that are expended in the creation of social value (Nicholls et al, Zappala & Lyons)

•  Sustainability: economic, social and environmental future viability of the organisation / programme (Bagnoli & Megali)


What is well-being? •  Personal happiness: positive emotions, lack of negative emotions,

energy, self-esteem, optimism, income/consumption (Oswald, Diener, Kahneman, Stiglitz)

•  Agency & capability: ability to make choices, to fulfil one’s potential, to be engaged in one’s work / study, ‘positive functioning’ (Nussbaum & Sen, NEF)

•  Environment & social interaction: positive relationships with family, community, wider society (Putnam, CMEPSP)

•  Good governance: perception of fairness / equity in society, trust in government, having a ‘voice’ (NESC 2009)

•  Sustainability: economic, social and environmental future viability of current levels of well-being (CMEPSP)


Well-Being Social Impact

Overlaps & Divergence

Sustainable positive change (or level?) in

socially desirable public interest domains

CONSUMPTION

FEELINGS

LOCATION/ POLICY

TARGET GROUPS*

‘ACTUAL’ CHANGE

ORGANISATION / PROGRAMME

SOCIETY*

*More for ‘base of pyramid’

*‘Fair’ distribution across society


Objectives in a public service system?

1) Utility: individual /organisational value achieved through exchange or allocation of goods / services

2) Production: individual /organsational value achieved through the production of products / services

3) Wealth: individual /organsational value achieved through accumulation of assets (value can be created or destroyed)

4) Equity: systemic value achieved through narrowing the gap between ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’

5)  Inclusion: systemic value achieved through increasing participation

6)  ‘Collectivity’: systemic value achieved through increasing level of consensus around policy / practices

‘Value objectives’ based on a study of 63 organisations in housing in Ireland - including public, non-profit, private, community and political sectors


Social Impact

Housing System

Well-Being

Competing or complementary?

‘UTILITY’ (consumption)

‘WEALTH’ (cost)

‘PRODUCTION’

‘UTILITY’ (satisfaction)

‘EQUITY’

‘INCLUSION’ ‘COLLECTIVITY’

‘WEALTH’ (profit)

FEELINGS

SOCIETY

INDIVIDUAL

TARGET GROUP

ORGANISATION


Key Issues for Research & Development •  Defining / producing social impact measures

–  Omission of feelings, inclusion and “collectivity” in Social Impact literature –  Measures are notoriously difficult to define, to agree upon, to establish

robust measurement strategies for, to aggregate / synthesize, etc –  What about sustainability: trade-off between current and future generations?

•  Establishing cause & effect relationships –  Even if the measures can be agreed and strategies for collecting data

established – determining what organisations, policies and/or environmental factors affect these measures is a major challenge

–  Issues of attribution, deadweight, gaming etc. require attention

•  Institutional accountability & transformation –  Should cause & effect relationships be established, these are likely to be

complicated and have many interdependencies – making accountability difficult – defining accountability may need adjustment

–  Institutional change is required and extremely challenging


References (Social Impact) •  Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., et al. (2010) "The ambitions and challenges of SROI". Birmingham: Third

Sector Research Centre. •  Bagnoli, L and Megali, C (2009) Measuring Performance in Social Enterprises. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly. Accessed at: http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/40/1/149. Last Accessed: 15/01/12 •  Emerson, J; Wachowicz, J and Chun, S (1999), Social Return on Investment: Exploring Aspects of Value Creation

in the Nonprofit Sector. REDF Box Set - Social Purpose Enterprises and Venture Philanthropy in the New Millennium (17)

•  Flockhart, A (2005), Raising the profile of social enterprises: the use of social return on investment (SROI) and investment ready tools (IRT) to bridge the financial credibility gap. Social Enterprise Journal, Vol. 1 (1), pp.29 - 42

•  Gordon, M (2009), Accounting For Making a Difference. Social Enterprise Magazine. 25.11.09. •  Leviner, N; Crutchfield, L and Wells, D (2007), The Impact of Social Entrepreneurs: Ashoka's Answer to the

Challenge of Measuring Effectiveness Putnam, R.A. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, NY, NY: Simon Shuster

•  Nicholls, A., Mackenzie, Somers (2007) Measuring real value: A DIY guide to Social Return on Investment, New Economics Foundation

•  Tuan, M (2008), Measuring and/or Estimating Social Value Creation: Insights Into Eight Integrated Cost Approaches. Prepared for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Impact Planning and Improvement

•  Stiglitz, J., Sen., Fitoussi, J-P. (2009), Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress,

•  Zappala, G. and Lyons, M. (2009) "Recent approaches to measuring social impact in the third sector: An overview". The Centre for Social Impact


References (Well-being) •  Diener, E. & Seligman, M. (2004) “Beyond money: toward an economy of well-being” Psychological Science in the

Public Interest, vol 5: pp. 1-31 •  Kahneman, Daniel (1999), ‘Objective Happiness’ in Kahneman, D., Diener, E. & Schwarz, N. (eds), Well-Being:

The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation •  Michaelson, J., Abdallah, S., Steuer, N., Thompson, S., Marks, N. (2009), “National Accounts of Well-being:

bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet”, London: New Economics Foundation (NEF) •  NESC (2009) Well-being Matters: A Social Report for Ireland (vol 1), Dublin: NESC •  Nussbaum, M. & Sen, A. (eds) (1993) The Quality of Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press •  OECD (2001) The Well-Being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital, Paris: OECD •  Oswald A (1980) ‘Happiness and economic performance’ The Economic Journal 107:1815–1831. •  Putnam, R.A. (2000) Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community, NY, NY: Simon Shuster •  Ryan, R. & Deci, E.L. (2001) “On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and

eudaimonic well-being” Annual Review of Psychology, vol 52: pp. 141-166 •  Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J-P. (2008), Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social

Progress (CMEPSP) Issues Paper, •  Stiglitz, J., Sen., Fitoussi, J-P. (2009),

Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, •  White, A. (2007) “A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being: A Challenge To Positive Psychology?” Psychtalk,

vol 56, pp. 17-20

Business

Mary lee rhodes - impact indicators