fses - ebp.hkcss.org.hk
TRANSCRIPT
FSES Social Impact Measurement Model
(SIMM)
Ted Kwan, CFA
Social Impact (vs financial impact)
Business = Busyness (business ≠ commerce)
FSES Social Impact Measurement Model (SIMM) Adapted from Kirkpatrick (1954) Four-level measurements
Beginning with the END in mind, Starting with Beneficiary first
“Experience without the test of logic is … chitchat, and that logic without the test of experience is … absurdity.” - Peter Drucker, The Observer
L1: Subjective Well Being, Satisfaction w/ the
program, Psychological, Feel good
L2: Knowledge, Skills,
Attitude
L3: Behavior
L4: SROI/
Cost effectiveness
Beginning with the
END in mind.
Identifying the most appropriate beneficiaries . . . can help program leaders to determine which outcomes are most relevant and most achievable. (Stanford Social Innovation Review 2016)
Theory of Change (Why)
Computing the Cost per beneficiary
Design the Kirkpatrick 4-level
Measurement & Other indicators
Theoretical Ground Valuation Outcomes & Survey Design
Steps to SIM
Defining Missions and Objectives
Identify Beneficiaries &
Stakeholders
Logic Model &
List the activities
Dig out the relevant Survey Form OR Design your own
Compute the SROI
Determine any Workfare, Govt savings or other
savings
Recheck the principle of Parsimonious
& Materiality
Compiling the Impact Report
Provide a benchmark for each outcome
SIMM – 社創校園通通識 計劃 (SENSE)
Beneficiaries/
Stakeholders Outcome/ Impacts Measurement
Secondary school
students (~600 nos.)
Level 1 對社企體驗工作坊的滿意度
Level 2 對社企 / 社創機構的熟識程度
對社企 / 社創機構所幫助 / 關注的群體的了解程度
Level 3 願意以行動幫助社會上有需要的群體
4.29
2.64 3.67 (+28%)
2.39 3.56 (+29%)
78%
Teacher (11 nos.) Level 1 對培訓課程的滿意度
Level 2 增加理解及認同社會創業的精神
理解社創教育有助多方面培育學生
Level 3 願意以行動支持良心消費
會嘗試在日常教學上實行社創教育
4.13
4.30
3.90
92%
82%
Funding Outcome Unit cost
Grant = $4M for 3 years Target no. of Trained teachers = 50
and Trained students = 6,000
Unit cost per head
= $660
SIMM – TSW Dawn Market
Beneficiaries/
Stakeholders
Outcome/ Impacts Measurement Type Benchmark or Monetary
Proxy
Hawker L1
Life Satisfaction
L2
Knowledge in business
Understand the community
L3
New friends
Good friends
Close friends
2.4 3.6 (+50%) OR
6.5 on a scale from 0 to 10
2.6 4.5 (+73%)
2.7 4.4 (+63%)
38.4 friends
9.9 nos.
2.3 nos.
5.6 (HK Avg)
$126 $253 per day
--
Customer 27; Hawker 6;
Govt people 5.
Helped once before
Willing to lend 2 month’s
income
Customer L4
Dollar saved on goods
Discount to market prices
$1.3million
Input ($) Outcome ($) Ratio
Salary for RSW for 3 years = 1.5m
2 professor, 5 RSW & 6 volunteers = 360k
Total = 1.86m
Income hawker = 8.9m
Saving on CCAS = 3.7m
Discount to market price = 1.3m
Total = 13.9m
1: 7.5
SIMM – Fullness Salon
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Pre Post
Changes in Deviate Youth
SWB Skills
Mission Through the operation as a hair salon, provides job retraining opportunity for deviate youth in Hong Kong, helps them to reintegrate into society in two years time.
Social Impacts Outcomes Benchmarks
No. of job offered
SWB increment
Felt being respect scoring
Peer relationship scoring
Skill improvement
Holistic improvement
No. of new friends made
Of which are good friends
Can find a new job after 2 year
6 youth
2.4 3.2
4.3
4.0
3.08 3.27
3.6 out of 5.0
14 nos.
4 nos.
78%
3 nos. per salon
3.25 (HK average)
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.0
n.a.
n.a.
50% (CSD average)
Social Investment
Initial Investment
Revenue from customers
Profit (if any)
Workfare to the youth
$800,000 per salon
$3,280,000 per year
$70,000 per year
$588,000 per year
Return to Stakeholders
Social return on investment (SROI)
Financial Return to investor
Social content of consumption
74% pa (social impact)
8.7% pa (sustainability)
18% (social content)
Theory of Change Self determination theory
The less specific the goal, the harder it is for communities to agree on whether they have achieved success
“A Question of Outcomes” C. Whistler & J. Grossman Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2016
Identifying the most appropriate beneficiaries . . . can help program leaders to determine which outcomes are most relevant and most achievable.
“A Question of Outcomes” C. Whistler & J. Grossman Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2016
Quality of Measurement
1. Relevant/ Material – a typical person would like to know this
information when making decision (e.g. re-offending rate, feeling on
family, etc.)
2. Parsimonious
3. Comparable (Benchmarking - time series and cross sectional)
• Do not make unlike things look alike (do not add unlike items)
• Look for benchmark (for cross-sectional)
4. Verifiable – two independent observers can agree on the value
5. Supported by research
• Faithful without bias, sampling issue, avoid small sample bias.
• Range & standard deviation, statistical significance
6. Cost constraints – about 5% of funding
人生有希望
Subjective Well-being as an Ultimate Measure
受助 助人自助 自助助人
How to determine our Well-being? (World Econ Forum)
The single definition is life satisfaction:
Overall how satisfied are you with your life, these days? (0 to 10, from “extremely dissatisfied” to “extremely satisfied”)
- END -