2012SFF - Made to measure

450 views
350 views

Published on

Workshop on different impact measurement tools

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
450
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Output - # of kids in low income neighbourhoods served through after school programOutcome – graduate high schoolImpact – break the cycle of poverty
  • A Theory of Change would not be complete without an articulation of the assumptions that stakeholders use to explain the change process represented by the change framework. Assumptions explain both the connections between early, intermediate and long term outcomes and the expectations about how and why proposed interventions will bring them about. Often, assumptions are supported by research, strengthening the case to be made about the plausibility of theory and the likelihood that stated goals will be accomplished.
  • Output - # of kids in low income neighbourhoods served through after school programOutcome – graduate high schoolImpact – break the cycle of poverty
  • Output - # of kids in low income neighbourhoods served through after school programOutcome – graduate high schoolImpact – break the cycle of poverty
  • Address lack of standards that exist
  • So, what exactly IS IRIS?At it’s very basic; IRIS can be thought of as a Dictionary for defining the social and environmental impacts, and performanceof organizations such as yourselves, or organizations like those in many of your portfolios. A dictionary that establishes a common language. For example, if I have a company, it helps clarify that when I talk about jobs and you talk about jobs that our definition of jobs is the same. Are we talking about full time jobs? Part time jobs? Seasonal or contract? This difference matters when we are trying to figure out the quality of the job.Likewise, if I say my company has reduced GHG emissions and you say your company has reduced GHG emissions the way we calculate reductions is the same – so we can compare, so our investors can compare, and so we can benchmark our performance in our sector.
  • 150 questions long – 2 hours to go through
  • stakeholder
  • Demonstrating Value provides a step-by-step guide (the Demonstrating Value workbook), report templates and many other resources for small- to medium-sized social enterprises and mission-driven businesses to pull together information about their social, environmental and financial impacts into a comprehensive performance snapshot. The performance snapshot can be used by management to make decisions, plan for the future and improve overall business performance. Performance snapshots are also an effective communication tool to show business impact to external audiences.The complete collection of Demonstrating Value tools and resources are offered online and free of charge at www.demonstratingvalue.org. Demonstrating Value is an initiative of the Vancity Community Foundation and is headquartered in Vancouver, Canada.How is Demonstrating Value different from other methods of social evaluation and measurement? It allows the development of different reporting outcomes based on the capacity and specific needs of the social enterprise. It sets out desirable practices in monitoring, assessment and reporting as well as helps equip the social enterprise with the means to develop these practices through tools, resources, direction to support and direct support. It links internal performance management with external reporting and accountability, resulting in efficient time and resource management by the social enterprise.It limits complicated jargon
  • Demonstrating Value’s philosophy about measurement and guiding framework:The Demonstrating Value workbook (and all the other tools) are based on the premise that the information you gather in your organization has to be directly relevant to the decisions you make and be compelling for others to learn about your value. To work out what information is most useful, always keep the following simple question in mind: 'What do we want to know and show?‘: i.e. ‘What information is important?' and ‘How is information used?‘The process of working through the workbook answers these questions in a structured way and is at least as valuable as obtaining the performance snapshot at the end. Achieving each milestone in the process helps build a particular type of capacity into the organization.Creating the Information Blueprint builds the organization’s capacity to describe their information needs clearly.Creating Monitoring Systems builds the organization’s capacity to collect and manage information.Creating the snapshot builds the organization’s capacity to analyze and use information to make decisions.
  • An example snapshot – this one is for The Cleaning Solution, a social enterprise contract cleaning company in Vancouver.This page of their snapshot shows the details of the costs of supporting their employees, approximately 70% of whom are work-ready persons living with a mental illness. The costs of employee supports are shown as a total, categorized by type of support and by issue supported, as an average per employee, and as a percentage of gross revenues.The full snapshot is available on the Demonstrating Value website.
  • Contact us via twitter and/or the website for more information. We are very interested in working with enterprises, consultants and funders/investors who need to evaluate and communicate the value of their work.Garth or Sarah will be happy to answer your questions!
  • CEIP is an active re-employment strategy, which takes the form of a “community wage” paid to unemployed individuals who volunteer to work on locally developed community-based projects. Take the funding that would be otherwise paid in EI and SA benefits and transform these expenditures into wages for social economy jobs that serves the community. Beyond fulfilling the need for immediate employment, CEIP hopes to influence participants’ longer-term employability by helping them preserve and possibly improve their human and social capital. At the same time, CEIP aimed to facilitate community development by supporting the “third sector” and encouraging activities that are meaningful for both the participant and the community Consequently, HRSDC and the Nova Scotia Department of Community Services (NS-DCS) decided to test CEIP under real-world operating conditions, and to evaluate it using the most rigorous evaluation methods available. CEIP was implemented in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality (CBRM) in Nova Scotia in 1999. Since the late 1980s, labour market policy discussions have shifted towards what is known as active labour market policy measures. The idea is that transfer programs should encourage recipients to work rather than passively providing cash benefits, regardless of whether they work while receiving them. This interest in active measures has affected policy developments in EI, and is relevant to CEIP’s rationale and design.Parallel to these shifts in employment policies, there has been a growing interest in alternative sources of job creation and mechanisms for supporting local development. In recent years, governments have attempted to form partnerships with non-governmental institutions in pursuit of social objectives, with considerable attention paid to the possible role of the social economy in helping to facilitate economic adjustment or to strengthen the ongoing life of communities. While definitions of the social economy vary, a common element is that of organizations and institutions, which neither entirely produce goods and services for sale in the market, nor entirely operate as part of government , but which share characteristics of both private and public sectors – often referred to as the “third sector.”7
  • Blue line the program group, those participating to CEIP projects: Nearly 90% of the program group was employed full time during the projectNote the control group, those participating to the study to provide counterfactualReal impact of the program was a maximum of 53 percentage points in month 3, and 36 percentage points just before the end of the projectThen we includes 12 months following period of 3 years eligibilityProgram group dips under the control group, as CEIP projects come to an end, loosing 15 percentage points to the control group. Then comes back as participants exhaust their EI benefits. So the impact of the quantity of employment in the long run is 0 for the EI recipients. But not on the quality of employment as we will see in a minuteWe would have preferred to make these jobs non-EI insurable. Note that some 10% of projects remain active after closure, hiring some 30 people with their own means
  • AT 54-MONTHS:This chart presents the CHANGE in NUMBER OF CONTACTS that the EI sample experienced from baseline to the 54-month follow-up, broken down by the different resource types (again, the program group is in blue; control group is in burgundy) It seems like Program group members experienced a large increase in network size, but in particular, the differences are statistically significant for contacts for specialized advice and help finding a job - those resources associated with bridging and linking social capitalThis is a striking and important finding, as this is one of the few studies that demonstrate unequivocally that governments can influence social capital directly
  • 2012SFF - Made to measure

    1. 1. Theory of changeImpact Reporting and Investment StandardsGlobal Impact Investing Ratings SystemSocial Return on InvestmentDemonstrating ValueRandomized Control Trials
    2. 2. Measuring Social Value Dr. Tessa Hebb Measuring Up, Social Finance Forum Centre for Impact Investing, MaRS, Toronto November 8th 2012
    3. 3. What is Blended Value“The Blended Value Proposition states is that all organizations, whether for-profit or not, create value that consists of economic, social and environmental value components—and that investors (whether market-rate, charitable or some mix of the two) simultaneously generate all three forms of value through providing capital to organizations.” Jed Emerson
    4. 4. Metrics and Measurement Blended value requires measurement of all three forms of value economic, social and environmental. “Measurement should be viewed as a process whereby the greatest value is achieved through organizations building up and learning from data and evidence over time.” (Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy).”
    5. 5. What are social metrics? Social metrics are measurement tools that can be used to define and articulate social value, social outcomes and the results generated by investment and activities in the social sector.
    6. 6. You manage what you measure“A review of measurement methodologies did not turn up a “silver bullet” or single numeric against which performance can be universally gauged. Rather, this reading reinforced the notion that, to an extent, measurement is its own reward. It encourages improvement, management, and the explicit formulation of assumptions and expectations.” (Measuring the Value of Corporate Philanthropy)
    7. 7. Start with your mission1. What are the results for which you will hold yourselves accountable?2. How will you achieve them?3. What will they really cost?4. How do you build the organization you need to deliver these results?
    8. 8. What to Measure (Measuring the Value of CorporatePhilanthropy). • Links among the mission, programs, and measures must be clearly defined and articulated in order to narrow the number of required indicators. • The measures should be easily collectible and communicable. • The measures should be strategically designed and applicable across the organization at all levels, while also encouraging of operating units to focus on high- level strategies. • Above all, the measures must address progress toward the mission and illustrate whether and how the organization’s actions make a difference.
    9. 9. Inputs, Activities, Outcomes, andImpactsInputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts over theshort, medium and long term are the building blocks ofsocial metrics.The building blocks are linked to the organizations missionthrough its theory of change.“Activities,” such as the number of staff trained or amountof goods purchased, and “outputs,” such as the number ofclients served, products distributed, and areas reached maybe the extent of measurement for short-term, one-offprojects. Sometimes simply identifying activities andmeasuring output may be all that is feasible.
    10. 10. Theory of Change• “Built around the pathway of change, a Theory of Change describes the types of interventions (a single program or a comprehensive community initiative) that bring about the outcomes depicted in the pathway of a change map. Each outcome in the pathway of change is tied to an intervention, revealing the often complex web of activity that is required to bring about change.” (TheoryofChange.org)
    11. 11. Logic ModelInput/Resources Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact IndicatorWhat are the resources What are the What is the evidence of What is the change that What will happen over How would youthat are needed to activities/products that service delivered to the will happen (short term the long term measure the outcome?accomplish the will generate the intended audience at or medium term) to the How will you know ifactivities? outputs? the intended dose? target group or change happened? (what others will be individuals? able to see, touch, count)Stakeholder 1
    12. 12. Conclusion• Blended value requires economic, social and environmental values be measured.• Social metrics help organizations understand their strengths.• Social metrics link mission, activities, outputs, outcomes and impacts.• No one size fits all.
    13. 13. Contact Dr. Tessa Hebb tessa_hebb@carleton.ca Director,Carleton Centre for Community Innovation www.carleton.ca/3ci
    14. 14. Impact Map
    15. 15. Theory of changeImpact Reporting and Investment StandardsGlobal Impact Investing Ratings SystemSocial Return on InvestmentDemonstrating ValueRandomized Control Trials
    16. 16. Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact IRIS GIIRS SROI Demonstrating Value Randomized Control Trials
    17. 17. The Impact Reporting and Investment Standards (IRIS) is a catalogue of metrics that can be used to describe an organization’s social, environmental, and financial performance. Pg 18
    18. 18. IRIS is… My Metrics Your Metrics Full Time Employees = Full Time Employees GHG Emissions Reduced = GHG Emissions Reduced
    19. 19. IRIS Framework 20 http://iris.thegiin.org
    20. 20. IRIS Framework 21
    21. 21. Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact IRIS GIIRS SROI Demonstrating Value Randomized Control Trials
    22. 22. Global Impact Investing Rating System Environment 377 B Corporations I $1.82B Revenues I 54 Industries I $1M Annual Savings Community Workers Governance Pg 23
    23. 23. Pg 24
    24. 24. B Impact Assessment 25
    25. 25. Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact IRIS GIIRS SROI Demonstrating Value Randomized Control Trials
    26. 26. What is SROI?Social Return on Investment is a framework formeasuring and accounting for the value createdor destroyed by our activities – where theconcept of value is much broader than that whichcan be captured by market prices.
    27. 27. val·ue/ˈvalyo͞o/nounthe regard that something is held todeserve; the importance, worth, orusefulness of somethingthe material or monetary worth ofsomething

    28. 28. Return on Investment (Net Profit)ROI = Cost of Investment 29
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example: Calgary Youth Justice () * <") 9 ) 9 3+, 3(1E 3"7XGY ) ("./ 3"- ) * ./ "0* 1.2 3" "(3T 9 "./ "9 % ! "" B H"+"./ 3"9(1.">3$(".) "! "" KB S" +"$"./ (33">3$("@ 1B 6I I 2 2 6! ! ) $12 """ C :3" " $@ H6 7 ) %$ :"Q$ :* 3 "4 $ :% :$. 2 +6"C/ (33 "- 3 $ (E K! "- ) * + "G993 +, 3 (1E KK"(3T 993+, 3(1E 2 * ) "^ "! ) "SK"% () +2 ") 993 +, 3 (1 / % Y , 2 $. ) (" + % C) . $ :"Q$ :* 3 " 7 XGY +, 2 $ . ) ( 1"Y :* , 3 , 6 "Y % +% - X"H - X"S L ) . 31 4) , 3 - X"! ! c) :2 3"% % $::1"Z 2 3, [ $=) , 47c VK V` J E KK I V! OE O V` HI "<3("% O` $::"9) ("! KK"%$::1 c) :2 3"2 % +=31.2 $.2 +1" ) H 08 VK V! O^ E 8 S! V` ! E KOK V! O! H"<3("2 +=31.2 $.2 + ) Z 2 3, [ $=) , c) :2 3"$..3+, $+% % 3"$."% * (." ) S 0O VK VSHE OH! V! KE OH ! VS! O"<3("$..3+, $+%3 Z 2 3, [ $=) , - ) * ./ "4) * (."c() %311" J 0! V8OSE ^ I ^ V! S! E 8K I VJ KE S^ ^ V! E I "<3(">) * + ") 993+, 3(", 2 H^ =3(.3, ".) "- 041 Z 2 3, [" $=) , c() @ ) +"1* <3(=2 ("Z ." $.2 1) +) I 0H VK V! HSE K 8J VS8E ! SJ V! E HKK"<3(">3$(B "VHI B / ("9) ("c() @ ) +"G992 3( 8` $.2 % (3F* 2 [(3, 4) 1.") 9"2 $(% +% 3($.2 +" ) ` 0^ VK VO! E K HI VH8E ! HI VHI K , $>"e"S` I "l "VO! E K"Z ">) * ./ ") +:>[ HI ! Z 2 3, [" $=) ,; ++* $ :"7 ) %$ :"Q$ :* 3 "4 ( 3 $ . 3 , ". / ( ) * / "- 04 16 2 V8 OSE ^ I ^ V` J ! E KO J V! O8 E 8 K 4$:% :$.3, ".) "(3:93% +9:$.2 +"m"SB B I * ."2 ) HP "c ( 3 13 +. "=$ :* 3 ") 9"1) %$ :"=$ :* 3 "% 3 $ . 3 , 6"Z =3 ( "S" 2 ( ) V! E J ! E H! ` J Y +.3(31."($.3"SB P I>3 $ ( 1[6C) . $ :"2+=3 1. 5 3 + . "2 "- 3 $ ( "! 6 + V! ` HE KKK7 XGY 3 $ ( "! 6 "- V! 6"VIH" H IB B I IST>3 $ ( "7 XGY6 V! ! KB KB S 6"V!! S"!47c"l "42 :3"1) * (% +"<() % "% ((3+.:>"9 5 "(3:2 :3"1) * (% """ .$@ 3"2 311E * () $@ 3BY .$& $" 5 5 * +2." 31" 4) .>" 21"$..(2 * .3, ".) "./ 3"2 :=35 3+.") 9 $+>"% 5 5 * +2 @ +=) "5 ) .>"<$(.+3(1E " 2+=31.) (1"$+, " ) =3(+5 3+."$ 3+%31") 9 3(2 "<() ($5 1"$+, "" 2 9 +4) 5 5 * +2 ) :* +.33(1"$(3"./ 3"/ 3$(.") 9 2 .>"Q "./ 1"<() ($5 B 3+" "W/ ) <<) (.* +2 31"9 (">) * ./ E <<) (.2 "<() ($5 ") <3($.2 +1E " .2 ) "1* + ) "$+,
    30. 30. 7 Principles of SROI • Involve stakeholders • Understand what changes • Value the things that matter • Only include what is material • Do not overclaim • Be transparent • Verify the result
    31. 31. Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Impact IRIS GIIRS SROI Demonstrating Value Randomized Control Trials
    32. 32. Capacity building ‘Snapshot’ Capacity report to use informatio nSupport for CapacityMonitoring to collect Systems informati ClearDevelopme on picture of Information nt informatio Blueprint n needs
    33. 33. Performance Snapshot example
    34. 34. www.demonstratingvalue.org The workbook, snapshot gallery, blog, newsletter and more Twitter @demvalue
    35. 35. Rating/Benchmarking systemLibrary/Catalogue of indicators Framework Toolbox Framework Set of principles Study design/methodology Randomized Control Trials
    36. 36. The use of RCTs for Social ImpactAssessment: An ExamplePresentation to the 2012 Social Finance Forum,November 8 and 9, 2012
    37. 37. Challenges for Social Impact Assessment WHAT outcomes to measure – that will best align with your program goal WHICH methods to use – that will best isolate program effects and allow the attribution of these efects to your program HOW to quantify and monetize these effects – to demonstrate financial viability39
    38. 38. Demonstrating Impact The capacity to measure the difference a new approach or program makes. To measure the true impact of a new program, we need to know what would have happened if the program had not been introduced.........we need a counterfactual: • to account for natural maturation processes, e.g., children skills are constantly improving • to account for factors external to the program, e.g., state of the economy fluctuates and influences labour market outcomes • to account for “regression to the mean” phenomenon, e.g., lone mothers on welfare eventually go back to work
    39. 39. Displaced workers re-integrating labour market asa result of being offered an earnings supplement 60%Full-Time Employment Rate 50% 40% 30% Program Group Supplement Group 20% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Month From Random Assignment
    40. 40. Displaced workers being offered supplementversus those not receiving the same offer 60%Full-Time Employment Rate 50% 40% 30% Program Group Supplement Group 20% Control Group Control Group 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Month From Random Assignment
    41. 41. Why Randomized Experiments? To measure the true impact of a new program, we need to know what would have happened if the program had not been introduced.........we need a counterfactual: Random assignment of participants to a treatment group and a control group provides the best method to create a counterfactual • Not the only method available • Not always possible to do RA
    42. 42. How Random Assignment Works Recruitment of participants A random sample of individuals from the population that isNote: Both program and targeted for the program intervention is recruited and interviewedcontrol group memberscontinue to have access to Informed Consentgovernment programs and Potential participants sign an informed consent agreeing to be partservices available to of the experiment and provide information for research purposesmembers of theircommunity. Random Assignment Volunteers are assigned at random to either the program group or the control group Program Group Control Group Eligible to receive program Ineligible intervention Informed of eligibility for the program intervention and the conditions Informed of ineligibility status attached to recipiency Do not meet conditions for Not eligible for program intervention, Meet conditions for recipiency recipiency, therefore, do not but continue to be part of the study receive program intervention for research purposes Receive program intervention
    43. 43. Properties of RCTs / Social Experiments With a large enough sample, random assignment insures that the two groups of individuals are identical, on average. • This is true for all observable and unobservable characteristics (such as motivation, self-confidence, determination, and all other personal attributes that can explain why an intervention will succeed with one individual but not another) Unlike nonexperimental methods, properly implement social experiments are guaranteed to provide internally valid impact estimates – no selection bias. Nonexperimental methods may be equally reliable in any given application; we simply cannot know a priori that they are reliable, as we can with experimental methods – you can only match participants on measured characteristics.
    44. 44. The Community Employment Innovation ProjectA research and demonstration project testing the value ofcommunity-based employment as an alternative to incometransfers in areas of chronic high unemploymentTwo parallel but related studies • Individuals: • Aims to preserve employability, through faster re-employment • Provides opportunities for skill development and strengthening of social capital • Communities: • Study of a model which utilizes strengths of local communities to create jobs • Aims to support their capacity growth and improve the social economy
    45. 45. The Program ModelThe Offer to Individuals • EI and IA recipients were offered 3 years of full-time employment, on locally developed projects in exchange for their entitlements to EI or IA • Employment was designed to replicate full-time market jobs • 35 hours per week, at $325 a week, EI/CPP insurable, 15 days annual leave, medical benefits • Support Services: some job-readiness and transferable skills trainingThe Offer to Communities • 6 communities in the Cape Breton Regional Municipality were offered a free workforce of 750 workers for up to five years • Each community was required to elect a representative board, develop a strategic plan, and approve projects • Local control given to communities – explicitly links projects to local needs
    46. 46. Participants Impact StudyKey outcomes of interest • Economic well-being • Employment, earnings, transfer receipt, income, poverty, and hardship • Longer-term employability: Skills and experience • Characteristics of post-CEIP employment, employability skills, attitudes to work • Social Capital, volunteering, life satisfaction
    47. 47. CEIP impacts on EI sample 100 Program GroupA 53 95 Control Grouppercentage 90 Impactspoint 85impact at 80 75peak 70 Percentage Employed Full Time 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 No significant 15 10 impacts a year 5 after end of 0 CEIP eligibility -5 -10 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 -15 -20 Months From Random Assignment
    48. 48. IA Sample: Large in-program impacts on employment, but not sustained 100 Program GroupNearly 80 95 Control Group 90 Impactspercentage 85point impact 80at peak 75 70 65 Percentage Employed Full Time 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 No significant 10 impacts a year 5 after end of 0 CEIP eligibility -5 -10 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 -15 -20 Months From Random Assignment
    49. 49. IA Sample: Permanent reductions in IA receipt three years after CEIP comes to an end 100 Program Group Control Group Impact 80 60 Percentage Receiving IA 40 20 0 A sustained 1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 12 percentage point reductionA stable -20 in IA receipt42 percentagepoint reduction -40in IA receiptduring program -60 Months From Random Assignment
    50. 50. Impacts on Social Capital:Sustained increase in the size of networks Network Size Change in number of contacts from baseline to 54 months 2.5 2.0 54-month gain 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 Help with chores Emotional Specialized Help finding a job support advice Program Control
    51. 51. Community Engagement:Sustained increase in volunteering and social contact Volunteering is important to both individuals and communities Can be an avenue to skill development, improves social inclusion, and is a large resource for many community organizations 54-Month: Impacts on Formal volunteering with groups or organizations 50 45 40 35 Percent 30 Program 25 20 Control 15 10 5 0 Volunteered in the past 12 Volunteered in the past 12 months months EI Sample IA Sample
    52. 52. CEIP Theory of Change:Analytical framework of expected change Individual Community Response Organizational Early Engagement Organizing, Planning, Mobilization MobilizationMobilization Years 1-3 Process Process effects CEIP Projects effects Provide work experience and valued community Services ProjectDevelopment and Interim Effects Years 4-5 Skill Gains, Social Social Capital Inclusion, Cohesion Well Being and Community Improves Post-program Capacity Improves Long-run Effects Years 6-7 Employment Levels, Market Conditions Improves
    53. 53. Targeted Community Sectors The two largest project categories were similar across communities Youth projects were most prevalent in New Waterford and Whitney Pier Seniors projects were at greatest scale in Sydney Mines Figure ES.5: Percentage of Work Years Assigned, by Community and Sector Served 100% 90% Health, Environment, Percentage of total work years assigned to a sector Beautification 80% Recreation, Arts and Culture 70% Services for the Poor, 60% Unemployed 50% Supports for Seniors 40% Supports for Youth 30% Other: Services for 20% the Disabled, CED Agencies, CEIP Boards 10% 0% Glace Bay NewWaterford North Sydney Sydney Mines Whitney Pier Community
    54. 54. Results: Theory Supports ObservationPreponderance of positive change in more successful communities New Sydney Whitney North Dominion Glace Bay Waterford Mines Pier Sydney Social Capital + + + + + Social Cohesion + + + + Social Inclusion + + + - + Third Sector Relative Size + Organizational Capacity + + + + + Economic Outcomes Social Conditions + + + Youth Effects + + + + - Senior Effects + + + + + Effects on the Poor + + + +
    55. 55. 57
    56. 56. 58
    57. 57. Cost-Benefit Analysis Results (IA Sample)Net benefit-cost per IA program group member over the full 54-month follow-up Accounting PerspectiveComponent of Analysis Individuals Communities Government SocietyMonetized components Participant Impacts CEIP earnings 34 344 0 -34 344 0 Foregone non-CEIP earnings -10 974 0 0 -10 974 Transfer payments (EI & IA) -11 836 0 11 836 0 Tax payments (taxes and premiums) -3 559 0 2 921 -638 Other household member earnings 2 035 0 0 2 035 Third Sector Organizational Effects Value from CEIP jobs (to sponsors) 0 20 024 0 20 024 Volunteering (CEIP induced) 0 2 404 0 2 404 CEIP administrative costs 0 0 -4 274 -4 274 Admin costs of EI & IA transfers 0 0 471 471Net Benefit/Cost per Program Group Member 10 010 22 428 -23 390 9 048
    58. 58. Benefit-Cost Ratio CEIP is very cost effective when one considers the combined benefits to individuals and community -- $1.39 in net benefits per dollar for IA recipients Total net benefit for every dollar that government spent on CEIP 1.60 1.39 1.40 EI Sample IA Sample Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.20 Positive Net Present Value 1.02 0.96 1.00 0.81 0.80 0.60 0.43 0.40 0.21 0.20 0.00 Participants Communities Society Perspective
    59. 59. Cost-Benefit Analysis Accounting framework Accounting PerspectiveComponent of Analysis Individuals Communities Government SocietyNon-Monetized components Participant Impacts Reductions in Hardship, Stress + 0 0 + Improved Social Capital + 0 0 + Increased Trust in Networks + 0 0 + Foregone Leisure – 0 0 – Community Effects Increased Social Capital of Residents 0 + 0 + Improved Community Cohesion 0 + 0 + Increased Social and Civic Participation 0 + 0 + Foregone Leisure 0 – 0 –
    60. 60. 62
    61. 61. Valuing Intangibles – ExamplesSocial Capital – each additional contact is valued at 7% of income;therefore CEIP impact is worth $3,808 per participantTrust – each additional percentage point increase in trust is valued at2.5% of income; CEIP impact is worth $2,401 per participantHardship – the reductions in stress associated with lower hardshipduring CEIP is valued at $3,379
    62. 62. Benefit-Cost Ratio Including the intangible impacts improves the benefit cost ratio to $1.61 in net benefits per dollar spent About a 50 percent improvement in overall net benefit to society Total net benefit for every dollar that government spent on CEIP 1.80 1.61 1.60 EI Sample IA Sample 1.40 Benefit-Cost Ratio 1.20 1.20 Positive Net Present Value 0.96 1.00 0.81 0.80 0.65 0.60 0.40 0.40 0.20 0.00 Participants Communities Society Perspective
    63. 63. Take aways To find out what difference a program makes, one needs to find an appropriate counterfactual. RCTs provide the best approach to set up a counterfactual and derive an Impact. An Impact measure is required to do a proper Cost-Benefit Analysis; and a sound CBA is needed to report on the financial viability of a program Analytical frameworks and Cost-Benefit Analysis should and can incorporate social benefits Short of convincing private sector investors or government authorities to transform their accounting or fiscal framework to include environmental and social benefits, attempts should be made to monetize these benefits.
    64. 64. WWW.SRDC.ORG67
    65. 65. Randomized Control Trials

    ×