1 presention richard hazenberg

Social Impact Measurement &

the Social Impact Matrix

Dr Richard Hazenberg

Institute for Social Innovation & Impact

University of Northampton

Presentation Overview

• CEDS/ISII Collaboration

• Social impact measurement – Usual reactions

• Why measure SI?

• How to measure SI?

• Evaluating programmes.

• Social Impact Matrix

– UK

– Vietnam

• Summary

CEDS & ISII

• VNU University of Economics and Business and the University of

Northampton have an institutional partnership based upon a formal

collaboration between the Center for Economic Development

Studies and the Institution for Social Innovation and Impact.

• CEDS and ISII are collaborating to understand the:

– Similarities/differences between SEs in Vietnam/UK.

– Vietnamese/UK needs in relation to SI Measurement.

– Applicability of the SI Matrix to the Vietnamese SE sector.

• This is a British Academy funded project (Newton Fund).

• In the future, to create an online web-based SI Measurement tool for

Vietnamese SEs.

Social Impact Measurement

The usual reactions I often see

when delivering this

presentation…

Stay away, it’s too complicated!

It’s time consuming & boring!

It’s too expensive!

So Why Measure Social

Impact?

• Provides evidence of the impact that you are having.

o Good evidence for stakeholders, funders & beneficiaries.

• Allows for organisational learning.

o Are you always having a positive impact?

• Can help secure contracts/investment. In the UK (NCVO, 2016):

o 81% VCSEs earned through competitive contract delivery (49%

in 2000/01).

o Government funding fell by 44% between 2008 and 2013.

• Transition in third sector relationship with the state/NGOs/investors:

o Desire for evidenced-based policy-making.

o Austerity & scarce resources.

Choosing?

• There is no right or wrong answer, the decision has to be

shaped by you.

• 3 main influencing factors are:

o Motivation

Why are you engaging in SI measurement?

What do you want to get out of it?

What impact do you want it to have?

o Readiness

How soon can you engage in SI measurement?

o Capacity

Staff expertise & time.

Financial resources.

External contacts/networks.

Design Phase Implementation Phase Evaluation Phase

Additional

Stakeholders

Funders

Practitioners

EvaluatorsAND/OR

AND/OR

Outcomes

Impact

Output

Evaluation

ReportMulti-

Interventio

n Design

First Contact

Participant

Evaluation

Interventi

on y

OR

Interventi

on x

Redesig

n

Time 1

Data

Evaluation Design

Hazenberg et al. (2014)

The Social Impact Matrix

Measuring Social Impact

• McLoughlin et al. (2009) developed the SIMPLE

methodology that seeks to measure:

– Outputs: Direct and easily identifiable

(i.e. jobs created).

– Outcomes: Individual beneficiary benefits

(i.e. increased confidence).

– Impact: Wider benefit to society (i.e. reduced social

security payments).

• We combined this approach with an examination of the

triple bottom-line to create the ‘Social Impact Matrix’.

– Economic, social and environmental.

Social Impact

Matrix

Economic

Outputs

Outcomes

Impacts

Specific Tools

Specific Tools

Specific Tools

Social

Outputs

Outcomes

Impacts

Specific Tools

Specific Tools

Specific Tools

Environment

Outputs

Outcomes

Impacts

Specific Tools

Specific Tools

Specific Tools

Social Impact Matrix

CategorySub-category

(where applicable)Data Input Category

Sub-category

(where applicable)Data Input Category

Sub-category

(where applicable)Data Input

Full-time N

Part-time N

Full-time N NI{(Income) - (NIA =

£5,328)] x 1.12 = NIx

Part-time N

Full-time N

Part-time N

Full-time N

Part-time N

Nascent

Entrepreneurs

Supported

NSelf-employment

TaxCorporation Tax

(Profits Made x 1.2)

= Associate's

Corporation Tax

(ACTx)

Start-ups Created N

Early-stagers

SupportedN

Established Enterp.

SupportN

Own Workshop

ProgressionN

Impact Sector

Employment &

Entrepreneurship

Output Outcome

GSE scale

(Schwarzer &

Jerusalem 1995)

Volunteering

N.O. volunteers

engaged in the shop N

Volunteer Hours

WorkedHrs

Social self-efficacy Volunteer SSE

Trainee Volunteer

GSE

Associate

Volunteers

Trainee Volunteers

Employment

Enterprise Support

Café/Shop

Alumni Businesses

Impact

Attitude to

Enterprise

Associate Volunteer

ATE

ATE scale (Athayde,

2009)

(Volunteer hours

worked x £8.80) =

Volunteering fiscal

value (VFVx)

Volunteer Value to

GF

Volunteering

Impact

Unemployment

Benefits

Job-seeker

allowance x N.O.

employeesSelf-employment

welfare (where

applicable)Other benefits

Include where

applicable

SSE Scale (Smith &

Betz 2000)

Income Tax

General self-

efficacy

New employment

tax

New employment

welfare (where

applicable)

[(Income) - (PTA =

£10k)] x 1.2 = Tx

Include where

applicableOther benefits

Unemployment

Benefits

Job-seeker

allowance x N.O.

employees

Example Matrix Section

• When engaging with the University of Northampton and the SI

Matrix, a social enterprise:

– Engages in full meetings with the research team, so that all aspects of the

business & impact can be understood & mapped out.

– Has a holistic SI Matrix produced that details all the areas that they deliver

impact.

– A collaborative process of selecting only key strategic areas for measurement is

undertaken.

– The relevant tools and reporting frameworks, as well as

methodological training, are provided to the social enterprise.

– The social enterprise then collects the data before sending

this to the research team.

– The research team then audits and analyses the data.

– A research report is then produced for the social enterprise,

badged by the University as a sign of independence

and quality.

SIM Process

• An overview of the partners that have engaged with the SI Matrix in

the UK is presented below. In total to date, 42 social enterprises

have engaged with our tool:

SIM Partners in UK

• Our research with CEDs has identified the following barriers to SI

Measurement in the UK & Vietnam:

Vietnam & the UK

1. Financial Capacity.

2. Human Resources.

3. Intellectual Knowledge.

4. Time.

1. Financial Capacity.

2. Human Resources.

3. Intellectual Knowledge.

4. Time.

Summary

• There is no perfect measure of SI measurement.

– Organisations need to find the approach that works best for them and aligns with

their strategic aims.

• The ‘Social Impact Matrix’ provides a route to mapping & measuring

social impact that is:

– Grounded in prior research & theory.

– Allows for a tailored approach to individual organisations.

– Is not purely fiscally based (i.e. like SROI).

• This type of measurement is considered best practice by the EC (EC

Social Impact Sub-group, Feb 2014).

• Newton Fund output 2016: Publication of the SIM framework for

Vietnam will be made available on the CEDS website for

Vietnamese social enterprises to engage with.

Thank you

for listening

Any questions?

Dr Richard Hazenberg

Email: richard.hazenberg@northampton.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0)7803924987