the ‘increased integration of refugees’ as an intended change for your funder,
you need to recognise that this is really an outcome for refugees. If this is
also recorded as an outcome against the funder it would be double counting.
Sometimes, although a stakeholder contributes to the activity, they are not
significantly changed by it.
In cases where the state is the funder there may be changes to society which you
could include. In the above example, integration of refugees may reduce benefit
payments which can then be included as a change for the state.
Making a judgement on outcomes
In deciding on outcomes, you should consider other factors, such as the
Stag
organisation’s objectives, as well as the views of your stakeholders.
Stag
Stakeholders’ views are critical but they are not the only factors in deciding
e 2 e 2
which outcomes are significant. SROI is described as stakeholder-informed,
rather than stakeholder-led, to recognise this.
This has some practical implications. For example, a substance user may
express a desire to continue using. In these cases you may decide not to include
the desired outcomes of one of your stakeholders as they conflict with your
organisation’s own intended outcomes and values.
Top Tip: Soft and hard outcomes
People sometimes use the terms ‘soft’ outcomes and ‘hard’ outcomes – the latter
being outcomes that are easier to measure or subject to more established means of
measurement. It is better to avoid this categorisation because if a ‘soft outcome’ is
significant to the stakeholders it will need to be included in your SROI analysis, so it
will be necessary to find a way to measure it.
Intermediate outcomes, or distance travelled
Sometimes it takes years for outcomes to take place – for example, slowing the rate of
climate change – but there may be observable changes along the way. You may have
heard this described as distance travelled, intermediate outcomes, or a chain of events.
It is important to establish what this chain of events is, not least because your activity
may only bring about some changes in the chain.
When a new outcome is identified by stakeholders or by your assessment of other
factors, you will need to decide whether it is an entirely new outcome, or in fact part of
an existing chain of events.
The worked example – describing outcomes
Look at the Impact Map for Wheels-to-Meals on page 102, the pink section shows
you how the column for describing outcomes has been completed.
When the initial analysis was undertaken, one of the assumptions was that residents
A guide to Social Return on Investment
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108