In general the greater the change that you need to make in order for the SROI
to become £1 for every £1 invested, the more likely it is that the result is not
sensitive. It is also possible that a choice you made earlier between two proxies
is now resolved because the choice doesn’t affect the overall ratio. All of these
findings should be discussed in the final SROI report.
This focus on the significant issues will help you keep your report short.
The worked example – sensitivity analysis
Let us consider, as an example, how Wheels-to-Meals explored the sensitivity of the
top row of the Impact Map, which covers the outcome ‘fewer falls’ (you will need to
consider all rows). This was a useful row to work with as it resulted in the biggest
financial value on the Impact Map, so needed scrutiny.
• Impact. Low deadweight and attribution were identified in this row. This could
be an issue. What if this was wrong and, for example, more of this change was
down to others than Wheels-to-Meals had realised? How far out would the
attribution figure have to be for the SROI to fall to £1: £1?
Using the spreadsheet to change the numbers and repeat the calculations,
attribution would have needed to be 53% for the SROI to become £1: £1 rather
than the 5% we have identified. If this were the case, the impact would fall from
a total for this row of £81,648 (for all three financial proxies) to £40,394, reducing
the SROI to £1: £1.
The change in attribution from 5% to 53% is a 960% increase.
• Financial proxies. There are three financial proxies in this row. As an example, we
will see how Wheels-to-Meals assessed the sensitivity of the financial proxy from
the NHS cost book for ‘geriatric continuing care inpatient’.
The change required to this figure (in this case a reduction) for the SROI to fall to
Stag
£1:£1 is for the financial proxy to drop from £7,220 per admission/stay to £1,093
Stag
e
– a change of 85%. This figure is, therefore, more sensitive, although the value
e
would still need to change significantly, so Wheels-to-Meals felt that the proxies
it had chosen were adequate.
Remember that the SROI figure is based on an incomplete example and this has
implications for the sensitivity analysis. The point of the example is to show how it
is applied.
It would also be possible to now present the results from a different perspective.
For example, if the cost of admission/stay fell to just over £1,093, the social return of
Wheels-to-Meals would still be more than £1: £1.
0 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