Forecast SROI of the Street Intervention Program_Report 2015

SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT REPORT ON
COMUNIDADE VIDA E PAZ’S STREET INTERVENTION
PROGRAM
- SROI Methodology –
19-03-2015

About the report’s certification
This report has been submitted to an independent assurance assessment carried out by The SROI
Network. The report shows a good understanding of the SROI process and complies with SROI
principles. Assurance here does not include verification of stakeholder engagement, data and
calculations. It is a principles-based assessment of the final report.
About the author
This report was produced by everis, a multinational consultancy firm of strategy and IT, within its
Corporate Social Responsibility scope. The report’s author, Constança Aragão Morais, is a SROI
practitioner accredited by The SROI Network.
:

The Street Intervention Program - SROI
4
Index
Executive Summary……………………………………………………................................................................................ 5
1.Introduction………………………………………………………....................................................................................... 8
2. Social Impact………………………………………………………………………………................................................... 9
3. Social Return On Investment (SROI)……………………………………………………………………………………….. 10
4. Context: Comunidade Vida e Paz……………………………………………………………………………………............ 13
5. The Scope of the Analysis: The Street Intervention Program……………………………………………………….......... 19
6. Stakeholders……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 23
7. Inputs and Outputs…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
8. Theory of Change........................................................................................................................................................ 31
9. Positive Outcomes...................................................................................................................................................... 37
10. Negative Outcomes................................................................................................................................................... 45
11. The Impact of the Street Intervention Program......................................................................................................... 46
12. SROI and Complementary Analysis.......................................................................................................................... 53
13. Measures to Maximize Social Impact........................................................................................................................ 59
ANNEX A – ENVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS: TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS…………………………………………… 66
ANNEX B – EXTRAPOLATING INPUTS: ASSUMPTIONS............................................................................................ 88
ANNEX C – MONETISING NON-ACCOUNTING INPUTS: ESTIMATES....................................................................... 90
ANNEX D – MONETISING OUTCOMES: FINANCIAL PROXYS…………………………………………………………… 91
ANNEX E – THE PROGRAM’S ALLOCATION OF INPUTS: ASSUMPTIONS……………………………………………. 94

5
Executive Summary
Introduction
This report details the results of a forecasting Social Return on Investment (SROI) study on the
street intervention activities provided by Comunidade Vida e Paz, so that homeless people in
Lisbon receive support every night in order to leave the streets and start a new life. This evaluation
aims at two main goals: (1) to measure and understand the changes caused by the Street
Intervention program and (2) to outline strategies that will allow these changes to be more effective
and to maximize the social value they generate.
Before reading this report, it is important to bear some key-concepts in mind:
• Social Impact is the change created in the wellbeing of individuals or communities.
• The evidence presented in this report follows the Social Return on Investment Methodology
(SROI), which quantifies the positive impacts generated per 1€ of investment in a social
intervention, thus providing its SROI ratio.
• The final SROI ratio is based in a theory of change, which supports the set of
interpretations and assumptions behind its calculation. Therefore, equal consideration must
be given to both qualitative and quantitative data contained in this report.
Comunidade Vida e Paz
Comunidade Vida e Paz is an organization whose mission is to help homeless adults recovering
their dignity and (re)building their life project. It is constituted by several integrated programs of
prevention, direct intervention, rehabilitation and reintegration.
Scope of the analysis: the Street Intervention program
This forecast SROI report focuses on the impact generated by Comunidade Vida e Paz’s
Street Intervention program, which daily supports homeless people in the streets of Lisbon.
This program represents the start of the value chain created by Comunidade Vida e Paz, as it
establishes the first contact between the organization and its main beneficiaries.

6
Inputs
The program’s running costs for one year of activity are estimated to be worth 460K €. This amount
refers to the value of resources consumed to assure the program’s operation, including those which
are not included in the current accounting system, such as volunteer time and some donations.
Outputs
The program is comprised by 56 teams, composed by a total of 504 regular volunteers who
participate in 4 different night circuits. Each circuit is repeated on a nightly basis throughout the year
and has several stops where the volunteers render support to the homeless. On average, the Street
Intervention teams contact 428 homeless people per night, establishing a conversation with 144 of
them, and distributing around 446 meals. In addition, an yearly average of 205 people is referenced
to the Open Dialog Space, a centre run by Comunidade Vida e Paz from which then refers its users
to adequate programs that will help them leaving the streets and reintegrating in society.
Additionally to its regular volunteering system, the organization also promotes a corporate
volunteering, allowing for the participation of about 504 collaborators from 19 different companies.
Positive Outcomes
This study demonstrates that the Street Intervention program contributes to the following positive
outcomes:
 Homeless People suffer less from hunger
 Homeless People feel less lonely
 Homeless People are referred to support programs
 Regular volunteers become more fulfilled and humane
 Corporate collaborators become more fulfilled and humane
 Companies have more motivated collaborators
These positive outcomes were identified by the activity’s stakeholders. Their value was established
through the usage of financial proxies, which are approximations of the monetary value that can be
attributed to the impact they have in the wellbeing of their beneficiaries.

7
Social Impact
The social impact of the program amounts to approximately 760K €. This value was calculated after
applying all due discounts for negative side-effects of the activity as well as for any impact
potentially generated by other context factors.
SROI and Sensitivity Analysis
This report concludes that the program is efficient in creating social value, as the total value of its
positive outcomes overcomes the investment made. According to this study, the program generates
1,6€ worth of social value for every 1€ invested. This value is based on conservative estimates,
given that:
 The potential value created by the relationship established between the volunteers and the
homeless people in the streets is not fully accounted for, as it does not include the benefits
arising from their subsequent entrance in support programs which will, eventually, take
them permanently out of the streets.
 Some positive outcomes that were identified by the program’s stakeholders were not
included in the analysis, due to the imprecision in the causality relationship they had with
the activity, which would make it difficult to accurately confirm and measure these
outcomes.
 The extrapolation of data related to inputs and outputs followed conservative assumptions.
A sensitivity analysis was conducted and reveals minimal volatility on the final SROI ratio when
assumptions based on subjective data are changed.
Measures to maximize Social Impact
The following recommendations arise from the SROI analysis, in order to maximize the program’s
efficiency in social impact generation:
 Establishing as a top priority the enhancement of the human support given to the homeless in
the street;
 Encouraging even further corporate volunteering;
 Rethinking the investment made in the distribution of meals;
 Conducting evaluative SROI analysis to the program on a regular basis;
 Monitoring homeless people throughout all stages towards reintegration in society;
 Sharing the report’s results with stakeholder and consult them upon ways to improve.

8
Introduction
This report resulted from the need to evaluate the social impact of the Street Intervention program,
which provides every night direct support to homeless people in the streets of Lisbon. It relies on
the internationally recognized Social Return On Investment methodology (SROI), which consists in
a framework to measure and account for the social return of an activity by contrasting its total
investment with the value of the social impact it creates.
Therefore, the present analysis fulfils two main purposes:
(1) To identify and understand the changes that result from the program’s activities, not only
regarding homeless people, but all the program’s stakeholders;
(2) To outline strategies to maximize the social value generated by these changes.
Since the SROI is a relatively new methodology with specific technical concepts that are not yet part
of the common knowledge, this report contains note boxes meant to support the reader throughout
the document.
Symbols used in the Report:
Attention or Detail
Here we identify certain elements
that require attentive reading or refer
the author to attachments at the end
of the report.
Reasoning or Assumption
Here we explain assumptions made
in the analysis that should be taken
into consideration for a better
understanding of the facts presented
in the report.
Advantages
Here we identify the advantages of
using a certain methodology or
reasoning.
SROI Methodology Note
Here we present the principles of the
methodology adopted in the
analysis, based in the guidelines of
The SROI Network’s Guide to Social
Return on Investment (2012).

9
Social Impact
What is social impact?
Social impact is the change created by the activities of an organisation, program or initiative in the
wellbeing of individuals or communities.
Why is it important to measure social impact?
The lack of relevant decision factors for the improvement of social services and the absence of
rigorous control in managing social activities are currently some of the major problems in the
Portuguese social sector. Additionally, similar social initiatives are spreading throughout the country
as a result of a recent social entrepreneurship trend but there is a decrease in the assignment of
funds to support them. All of this results in more pressure coming from investors to make the
activities they support accountable.
How to measure Social Impact?
Measuring social impact can be a complex process, since economic, social and environmental
impacts often result from intangible outcomes. Several methodologies and frameworks have been
developed with the purpose of measuring social impact, and the most developed and used until
now in Europe has been the Social Return On Investment methodology, which is largely used in the
United Kingdom and recommended by world renowned entities:
“Over the past 12 months LBG members have shown increasing interest in SROI (…)
the principles and the discipline of SROI can lend significant benefit to any evaluation
process. Understanding stakeholders’ perspectives on the difference your programme has
made, and claiming credit only for directly attributable impacts, are good practices no
matter how you plan to measure the impact of projects you have created”, LBG Review
2010
“SROI is an analytic tool for measuring and accounting for a much broader concept of
value. It incorporates social, environmental and economic costs and benefits into decision
making, providing a fuller picture of how value is created or destroyed. SROI is able to
assign a monetary figure to social and environmental value which is created.”, nef
“Through the SROI process we learn how value is created by an organisation, and this is
just as important as what the ratio tells us.”, London Business School

10
Social Return On Investment (SROI)
The methodology
The Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology seeks to measure the efficiency of any
activity in creating social value to its stakeholders and to society at large. In order to do that, it
accounts for all economic, social and environmental outcomes from the activities, as well as for all
the resources they spend. in that process, thus being able to perceive changes that are intangible
at first (e.g. reduction of loneliness) and resources that are not usually taken into account (e.g. time
of volunteer work). This method enables a ratio of benefits to costs to be calculated, thus allowing
for the assessment of how efficient an activity is at creating social value.
Figure 1. A simplified vision of the SROI methodology
Money is the unit of measure used to calculate the SROI ratio. This does not mean that we are
putting a price on things such as happiness and friendship. Rather, we are using money as a tool to
measure and compare resources and social outcomes. Money is better than, say, bananas, as
costs are, in great part, already translated in monetary terms and the utility that an outcome has on
someone’s wellbeing is also easier to translate to monetary terms, as much services in the market
already offer that utility and have a market price that indicates their subjective value to the average
consumer.

11
The ratio
The SROI ratio is obtained by dividing the monetary value of the impact for the monetary value the
investment. A ratio of 2:1 indicates that an investment of 1€ delivers 2€ of social value.
The principles
To ensure objectivity in the analysis, the SROI methodology predicts a set of principles, techniques
and elements that bring additional precision to the calculated value:
More than a ratio……
The reading of an SROI analysis must not focus exclusively on the ratio. To fully understand the SROI
ratio it is important to take in consideration the whole value creation process and its specific context.
More than just a ratio, the SROI is a history of change, based in a set of interpretations, assumptions and decisions
made throughout the analysis. It is not an absolute truth, it is a subjective truth regarding the specific reality of the
organisation and the perspective of its stakeholders.
The 7 principles of SROI
1. Involve Stakeholders in the processes of understanding and measuring social value;
2. Understand what changes, by recognising positive and negative changes, as well as those
that are intended and unintended;
3. Value the things that matter, using financial proxies to monetize the value of outcomes that are not traded in
markets;
4. Only include what is material to give a true picture from which stakeholders can draw reasonable
conclusions about impact;
5. Do not over claim – assess the change caused solely by the studied activity by recognizing and subtracting
any impact created by external factors;
6. Be transparent by demonstrating the basis on which the analysis may be considered accurate and honest
and by showing that it will be reported and shown to the stakeholders;
7. Verify results, through appropriate independent certification.

12
The 9 steps of an SROI Analysis
An SROI analysis may be divided in 9 steps:
Establishing scope
Establishing the analysis’
object and goals and
determining its time frame.
What will the
analysis cover?
Who will be involved and how?
What changes? And
how do these
changes happen?
To which extent do
changes occur?
What is the social
return of the
activity?
Identifying stakeholders
Identifying the groups
affected or that affect the
activity and determining
how to involve them in the
analysis.
Inputs and outputs
Accounting for all
resources consumed and
listing the activity’s direct
results.
What resources
are invested? And
which are he direct
results?
What Impact is
generated from
change?
Mapping outcomes
Creating a theory of
change by identifying and
describing the changes
occurred in the wellbeing
of the stakeholders.
Evidencing outcomes
Confirming that changes
actually occur and
measuring them.
Putting a value on the
outcomes
Understanding what is the
subjective value of the
outcomes to their
receivers and converting it
to monetary units.
Establishing Impact
Calculating the impact
generated solely by the
activity.
What is the value of
the changes?
Calculating the SROI
Calculating the final ratio
and conducting sensitivity
analysis to test whether
the assumptions adopted
in the study have a big
impact on the results.
Reporting, using and
embedding
Drawing
recommendations,
elaborating the analysis’
report and validating its
conclusions
What
improvements
can be made?

13
Context: Comunidade Vida e Paz
The Portuguese economic environment
Although the homelessness phenomenon is not recent, there are some situations that contribute to
its intensification, such as changes in the labour market, inadequate social housing support and
healthcare policies, or a general increase in drug consumption.
 In the past few years, due to a strong economic, budgetary and financial crisis, the
Portuguese society registered a significant degradation of its living conditions, with a
special incision in large urban centres such as Lisbon and Oporto. This scenario is
consubstantiated by the following figures:
 The unemployment rate in the second quarter of 2014 was 14%. Although this figure is 2,4
percent points lower than the same period in 2013, unemployment still has serious effects
in the life of the Portuguese people.
About 25% of the population is at risk of poverty or social exclusion, a growing trend since 2007.
(source: INE – Instituto Nacional de Estatística, 2014)
4,5
7,5
8,5
16,4
14
2000 2004 2008 2013 2014
Source: Eurostat
Figure 2. Evolution of Portugal’s unemployment rate/ 2000-2013

14
The concept of “homelessness”
According to the National Strategy for Integration of Homeless People (2009-2015):
“A homeless is any person who, regardless of nationality, age, sex, socio-economic situation or
health condition, is currently (1) without a roof (i.e. living in public spaces, emergency shelters or a
precarious space) or (2) without a home (i.e. living in temporary accommodations)."
Among the main social and health issues that lead to homelessness are unemployment, lack of
income, alcohol and drug addiction. Consequently, the segment of the population at risk of
becoming homeless often applies to at least one of the following three situations:
• People who can no longer afford to pay mortgages or loans;
• People who were recently released from prison;
• People who are unemployed.
Source: Lisbon's Plan for the Homeless People, 2006
The time spent in a homeless situation is key to the individual’s program of (re)integration.
(Snow and Andersen)
Chronic: Someone spent most of her lifetime in the streets, having only enough money for
minimal spending and being able to endure social contact with people in the same situation.
Periodical: Someone who has a home, but sometimes leaves it to spend
periods of time in hostels or even in the street.
Temporary: Someone in homeless situation due to unforeseen circumstances but has
the ability to maintain a stable home.
Homeless
Person
Total: Someone who has no home and spends the nights in homeless shelters, churches
or abandoned buildings. Often, this person is traumatized for not having social relations in
the community and not having any kind of social support.

15
Lisbon’s homeless population
In Lisbon, Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa (SCML) - a private institution of public utility -
plays an important role in Lisbon’s system of support to homeless people. In December 2013,
SCML gathered hundreds of volunteers to scroll the streets of Lisbon in order to obtain numbers
and figures about the city’s homeless population. This exercise resulted in the following numbers:
 A total of 509 people were found sleeping in the street and 343 people slept out of the
streets but did not have a home (i.e. spent the night in temporary shelters). This sample
totalled 852 homeless people, the majority of which was in the 35-54 age group. It also
showed that 41% of Lisbon's homeless population comes from other countries.
 Most of the cases included in this study applied to the category of temporary homeless
people, living on the street for less than three years.
 These numbers show in every 10.000 inhabitants of Lisbon city, 18 were homeless and 11
slept on the street.
59%
14%
27%
Nationality
Portuguese
European
Others
31%
17%
15%
32%
5%
Time in the Street
< 1 year
1 - 3 years
3 - 6 years
6 - 20 years
> 20 years
87%
13%
Distribution by Sex
Male
Female 72%
28%
Sources of Income/Livelihood
Has no source of
income
Has some source of
income
Figure 3. Characterization of the homeless population in Lisbon city (2013)

16
The Street Intervention program and the value chain of Comunidade Vida e Paz
Comunidade Vida e Paz aims mainly at helping homeless adults to recover their dignity and to
(re)build their life project through several integrated programs of prevention, direct intervention,
rehabilitation and reintegration.
Figure 4. Programs of homeless support run by Comunidade Vida e Paz

17
Within the city of Lisbon there are several homelessness institutions that share Comunidade Vida e
Paz's intervention scope. These can be divided into four categories:
 Prevention: support to families and individuals in risk of extreme poverty, social exclusion,
domestic violence and drug addictions.
 Direct intervention: support services to homeless people to alleviate their suffering and take
them out of the streets (e.g. distribution of food, health assistance, creation of friendship
bonds).
 Rehabilitation: treatment of addictions or aggravated physical /mental health issues.
 Reintegration: professional training and follow-up of individual's integrating into society after
leaving the streets.
Figure 5. Entities and projects intervening in Lisbon within the scope of action of Comunidade Vida e Paz

18
Additional data about the beneficiaries of the Street Intervention program
Information gathered through questionnaires to the beneficiaries of the Street Intervention program
shows that 44% of them sleep in the streets, abandoned houses or shelters, 32% live in rented
rooms and 24% are subject to other precarious housing situations. This data confirms that the
programs’ beneficiaries clearly fit in the concept of homeless person as defined by Lisbon
municipality - i.e. "anyone who (...) is currently [1] without a roof (i.e. living in public spaces,
emergency shelters or a precarious space) or [2] without a home (i.e. living in temporary
accommodations)”.
It can also be concluded that the majority of the homeless people supported by the program show
specific characteristics that result from their inclusion in the support network provided by Lisbon’s
several homelessness institutions. They show, for example, higher rates of regularized legal status
(verified in 72% of the beneficiaries) and regular hygiene practices (undertaken by approximately
78% of the beneficiaries), when comparing to other homeless people that do not enjoy this kind of
institutional support.
Regarding the most common problem in this population - health issues – most respondents said
that support comes often from friends or volunteers, and a significant number does not have any
kind of support when facing a health problem.
Figure 6. Characterization of the beneficiaries of Comunidade Vida e Paz (2014)
25%
21%
8%
29%
17%
Health issues support
Volunteers
Friends
Family
Nobody
Others
14%
64%
22%
Hygiene
Weekly showers
thanks to
Comunidade's help
Weekly showers by
means other than
Comunidade's help
Does not take showers
on a weekly basis
20%
52%
28%
Legal Status
Has up-to-date documents
thanks to Comunidade's
help
Has up-to-date
documentos by means
other than Comunidade's
help
Does not have up-to-date
documents
32%
3%
7%
34%
24%
Residential Status
Room
Hostel
Abandoned house
Street
Others

19
Scope of the Analysis: the Street Intervention
program
This report is part of a pilot project for the implementation of a social impact evaluation system
within the whole Comunidade Vida e Paz organization. This first trial consists in a forecasting SROI
analysis of its Street Intervention program, based on historical data from 2013 and 2014.
This chapter will frame the scope of the analysis. Here we provide a better understanding of its
goals, scope and timeframe.
What are the goals of the analysis?
The social impact evaluation of the Street Intervention program serves an elucidating purpose as it
helps understanding the dynamics and scope of the program’s outcomes from the perspective of
those who experience those changes. It also serves a managerial purpose, by paving the way for
the implementation of rigorous monitoring systems that will foster the program’s efficiency in the
creation of social value.
By joining both the subjective and objective goals stated above, the analysis aims at providing the
program’s internal decision process with numbers and figures that substantiate its qualitative
performance with regards to its ultimate goal – to cause positive impact in the wellbeing of its
stakeholders and society as a whole.
As it is able to gauge the program’s degree of achievement in regards to its mission and specific
goals (which was, up to now, mostly intangible and subject to discretional judgment), and by
promoting stakeholder involvement, the present report also serves a motivation purpose, as it is
expected to inspire its beneficiaries, volunteers and donors to work together in order to reach better
results.
Another specific goal of this pilot SROI analysis relies on testing several mechanisms and tools to
later prepare every program within the organization to implement social impact monitoring systems.
Examples of mechanisms and tools tested in this analysis:
- the creation of an integrated system for the monetisation of all resources (including
volunteering time and in-kind donations);
- the reformulation of the organisation’s output monitoring systems, so that they include
additional relevant information aimed to quantify outcome indicators;
- methods for stakeholder involvement throughout the process of impact evaluation;
- ‘stated preference’ methods for outcome monetisation, aimed at assessing the relative
value of outcomes in the stakeholder’s specific subjective realities.

20
What is the focus the analysis?
This SROI analysis focuses on activities performed by its Street Intervention program, for three
main reasons:
• It is the "fingerprint" of Comunidade Vida e Paz, as it was the first program within the
organisation and also the most well-known by the general public;
• It is a key-program in the organization's value chain as it establishes the first line of contact
with Lisbon’s homeless population;
• Its outcomes are harder to assess as they result from a widespread street support to users
that are difficult to monitor, thus making management decisions harder to take due to lack
of data.
Goals of the present SROI analysis:
 understand the dynamics and scope of the changes generated from the point of view of the
stakeholders
 measure and monitor efficiency in the creation of social value, taking into account all
consumed resources
 assess the fulfilment of the program’s goals and make sure that its results are aligned to the organization’s
mission
 test methods and tools for the implementation of a social impact evaluation system in the whole
organization
 communicate the changes created next to stakeholders, based on the SROI results

21
The Street Intervention Program
The Street Intervention program aims at promoting systematic support to
homeless people in the streets of Lisbon. Its ultimate goal is to make a positive
impact in their day-to-day life and thus allowing for the creation of trustworthy
relationships between the volunteers and the homeless that can be used
motivate the latter to change their life and exit the streets.
There are 56 Street Intervention teams that rely on the work of about 500
volunteers. Every night, four different teams scour the streets of Lisbon,
stopping at around 100 different spots in the city.
As a means of getting closer to homeless people, the volunteers distribute an
individually wrapped meal (two sandwiches made with fresh bread, a glass of
milk or yogurt, a biscuit or pastry and some fruit).

22
What is the timescale of the analysis?
Since this analysis was a first test to the implementation of a new data collection system adapted to
the SROI methodology at Comunidade Vida e Paz, there was insufficient historical data regarding
some SROI variables – in this report we call these variables “non-accounting data”, as they lie
outside the scope of the organization’s internal accounting records. As such, variables related to
non-accounting data are based only on records collected during the 7 months that have elapsed
since the beginning of the analysis until the production of this report.
Therefore, because this SROI report is based on incomplete historical data, it is meant to be a
forecast and not an evaluative report. Details on assumptions made to extrapolate the available
data to a prospective one year of activity are available on the Annex B at the end of this document.
Sources of historical data used in the analysis (see Annex B)
The historical data in which this Forecasting SROI was based originates from distinct sources and timeframes:
• The accounting data provided by the organization's regular accounting system regarding the fiscal year of 2013.
• The non-accounting data (i.e. donations and volunteering time) obtained during the 7 months of implementation
of the new data collection system (November 2013 - June 2014).
Figure 7. Extrapolation of data for the forecast SROI analysis

23
Stakeholders
Identifying stakeholders
The Street Intervention program affects and is affected by a large number of stakeholders who are
a key element to understand its social impact. According to how they experience or influence the
impact generated by the program, these players were divided by the following groups:
- Homeless people that receive support from the program
These are the program’s main beneficiaries as the program’s first goal is to deliver food and support
to the homeless people in Lisbon city. This group has two main common characteristics: (1) they all
suffer from degrading and insecure living conditions and (2) somehow they all feel excluded from
society. There are, however, varying characteristics within the group, such as age, nationality, place
of sleep, time elapsed since they became homeless, etc.. These differentiating factors were cross-
examined with the answers given by them in the questionnaires about the program’s impact, and it
was found that different sleeping conditions lead to different levels of impact generated in the
beneficiaries’ wellbeing, as people sleeping in the street felt much more lonely and socially
excluded than people sleeping in shelters or shared abandoned houses. These differences were
thus taken into account in the SROI calculation.
- Regular volunteers
The program relies on the work of about 500 volunteers that are organized in smaller groups. All
volunteers participate in a night circuit every two weeks, and so all volunteers are expected to
contribute equally to the creation of a positive impact in the lives of homeless people in Lisbon.
However, this is not the only way that volunteers are linked to the program’s impact creation – in
fact volunteers are themselves subject to experience positive impact from their participation in the
program. In this regard, different volunteers may experience differently change , as some volunteers
might see it as a big influential factor in their wellbeing, while others might not think it is that
important, comparing to other sources of wellbeing that they have available. These differences have
to do with each volunteer’s personal profile and so it is not possible to create sub-groups in order to
discriminate different ways of experiencing change, nevertheless these differences were taken into
account in the SROI calculation (further details on page 47).

24
- Staff of Comunidade Vida e Paz
The volunteer coordinator, the accountant and the person in charge for the food storage are staff
members of Comunidade Vida e Paz that are responsible for assuring the structural needs of the
program.
- Donors
The program’s viability relies greatly on donations from enterprises and individuals. The majority of
donations are food products, although there are also donations of services, equipment and money.
- Institutional partners
The program also relies on subsidies both from the Government’s social security system and from a
charity named Santa Casa da Misericórdia.
- Suppliers
Suppliers of products and services also have a role in the program’s impact creation, although it is
purely commercial.
- Corporate employees
Some companies challenge their employees to participate in a circuit with the Street Intervention
teams as an enriching human experience.
- Companies
The companies that offer their employees the possibility to participate in a Street Intervention circuit
are themselves another kind of stakeholder. The impact that the program has on them is less
emotional and human and has more to do with direct or indirect benefits in their business.
- Residents in Lisbon
The residents that deal everyday with the presence of homeless people in the streets are also
somehow affected by the program, as one of the program’s main goals is to actually reduce the
number of homeless people in the streets.

25
- Entities with similar activity
Other organisations with missions, visions and intervention scopes that are similar to the program at
study will, naturally, affect and be affected by its activity.
Choosing which stakeholders to include in the analysis
From the list of the program’s stakeholders, those included in the analysis were the ones who
experience material change as a result of the activity and/or whose contribution adds relevant
information to the identification, validation and evaluation of the activity’s impact overall.

26
Stakeholder Groups Characterization Included?
Justification for (not) being included in the
Analysis
1. Homeless People
Homeless people who receive daily
support from the Street Intervention
teams. This report makes a distinction
between different ways of
experiencing change by two sub-
groups:
-Homeless people sleeping in the
street
- Homeless people sleeping out of the
street
Yes
Being the main beneficiaries of the activity, their
participation is essential to the analysis
2. Regular
Volunteers
Volunteers that integrate permanently
in a Street Intervention team
Yes
The volunteer's views about the impact they
generate in their own wellbeing and in that of the
homeless people are relevant to the analysis
3. Staff of
Comunidade Vida e
Paz
Staff workers in charge of coordinating
the volunteer teams and dealing with
the organization’s accounting system
Yes
They are the people in charge of implementing all
required initiatives to make possible the present
social impact evaluation
4. Donors
Individuals and companies that make
donations in kind (goods and services)
or money
No
Their wellbeing is not affected by the activity and the
knowledge they have about it will not add any
significant information to its general understanding
5. Institutional
Partners
Institutions that subsidize part of the
activity
No
Their wellbeing is not affected by the activity and the
knowledge they have about it will not add any
significant information to its general understanding.
6. Suppliers
Companies with which the
organization has a commercial
relationship
No
Their wellbeing is not affected by the activity and
they usually do not have an informed opinion about it
7. Corporate
Employees
Corporate employees that have
participated once or twice in the
activity through the Comunidade’s
corporate volunteering program
Yes
They can add an objective perspective on the results
of the activity without being influenced by personal or
emotional factors. Their testimony is also relevant to
identify direct impacts generated from the corporate
volunteer programs in their own wellbeing
8. Companies
Contact-persons inside the companies
in charge of the communication with
Yes
They can bring a more professional and objective
opinion on the efficiency of the organization around
corporate volunteering, and about the impact it has
on the company.
9. Residents of
Lisbon
Residents of the city of Lisbon that
have contact with homeless people
Yes
It is useful to ascertain if the program has any side-
effect in the locations where it intervenes
10. Entities with
similar activity
(Street Intervention)
Entities with social activity centred
around homeless people, with or
without direct partnerships with
Yes
Their views are essential to understanding the
contribution of the program in the context of Lisbon's
wider network of street intervention initiatives
Table 1. Stakeholders included in the SROI analysis

27
Involving stakeholders
Collecting information from stakeholders is one of the guiding principles of the SROI methodology
as it allows for a deeper understanding of all the changes generated. Moreover, it ensures that what
is being measured is not the impact that the organization's thinks it is creating, but rather the
subjective impact as reported by those who experience it.
Different methods of involvement were chosen for each stakeholder group, depending on its
characteristic and on the type of contribution intended. More details about the techniques used and
their results can be found in Annex A at the end of this document.

28
Inputs and Outputs
Inputs
The investment assumed in this SROI analysis refers to the financial value of all the resources used
during one year of activity of the Street Intervention program. This value also includes non-
accounting inputs such as volunteering time and in-kind donations (goods, services and
volunteering time).
Table 2 presents the activity’s inputs, indicating the contribution of each group of stakeholders to
render the program financially feasible. Contributions made in form of goods, services or
volunteering time were given a monetary value, based on estimations of what Comunidade Vida e
Paz would have to pay if it had to acquire them on the market. All assumptions behind input
monetisation can be found in Annex C at the end of this document.
Stakeholders Type Value Reasoning
Regular Volunteers Time 143 677,07 €
• The value accounts for the volunteering hours
employed in the program’s activities, as well as part
of the ones employed in the Comunidade’s Head
Office
• The hours of non-technical volunteer work were
valued according to the national minimum wage
• The hours of the technical volunteer work were
valued according to the wages of the corresponding
professions
Donors
Goods
and
Services
226 771,12
€
• The value estimates the market cost of the donated
food products used in the 162.790 meals distributed
annually by the program, as well as for part of the
ones used in Head Office staff’s meals
Money 77 151,62 €
• Part of the program’s operational accounting costs
(resulting from purchases and from the wage of the
program’s volunteer coordinator) that was paid for
by Donors
Institutional Partners Money 10 000 €
• Part of the program’s operational accounting costs
that was paid for by the protocol with Santa Casa
da Misericórdia
Corporate Employees Participating
in CVP
Time 7 766,32 €
• The value accounts for the non-technical
volunteering hours employed in the corporate
volunteering program, valued according to the
national minimum wage
Total 465 366,40 €
Table 2. Inputs consumed during one year of the program

29
The exercise of tracing and monetizing all the resources consumed in the Street Intervention
program allowed for a global vision of the volume of needed investment and of the importance of
the contributions of each group of stakeholders to fulfil that investment. In Chapter 13 (Measures to
Maximize Social Impact), these numbers are contrasted with the social value created in order to
assess the efficiency of their use.
The numbers show that the total annual investment in the program amounts to 465 366 €. However,
only 20% of this value corresponds to money, whereas approximately 50% refers to goods and
services and the remaining 30% belongs to volunteering time. It is also possible to observe that the
donors are the most important source of funding, accounting for almost 65% of its funds. These are
followed by regular volunteers (30%), partner institutions (2%) and corporate volunteers (3%).
Summary of assumptions of inputs accounting (see Annex B and Annex C)
• In-kind donations (goods, services and volunteering time) were monetized in
accordance to what would have been their cost to Comunidade Vida e Paz if it had to
acquire them in the market.
• All values reflect resources consumed during one year of activity, not the ones that were received
during that time.
• The presented annual values result from extrapolation of incomplete historical information regarding
accounting data from the fiscal year of 2013 as well as additional non-accounting data collected during the
analysis period (November 2013 to June 2014).
• All values include a stake of the resources consumed in Comunidade Vida e Paz’s head office.
These inputs were assigned to the Street Intervention program according to the cost allocation ratio
currently used in the organization's accounting system.
Importance of non-accounting inputs
It is worth of note that, if the values corresponding to non-accounting inputs had not been taken into
consideration, the assumed investment would have been only 87 151 €. In other words, this means that
only 18% of the activities total actual inputs would have been considered.

30
Outputs
This section clarifies the outputs of the activity under analysis, which correspond to the direct and
tangible results of the activity.
Table 3 shows a qualitative and quantitative summary of the Street Intervention activity. The
number of conversations and the number of contacted beneficiaries resulted from data collected
throughout two months within the analysis period (representing, respectively, the Winter and
Summer seasons) whereas the rest of the information refers to existing data regarding the
program’s records of 2013.
Output Description Street Intervention program in
Numbers
On average, the Street Intervention teams distribute 446 meals every day to around
428 homeless people, establishing a conversation with 144 of them. This means an
estimated total of 156 220 contacts with homeless people per annum, 27% of which
resulting in some sort of bond (i.e. conversation, friendship or support regarding a
personal problem). Another direct result from the program is the referral of new
homelessness cases to the Open Dialogue Space (ODS). Yearly, this link results in
about 205 homeless people receiving legal/health aid or entering rehabilitation and
reintegration programs..
To fulfil these activities, Comunidade Vida e Paz receives help from 504 regular
volunteers (forming 56 teams) who participate every 2 weeks in one of the four
existing circuits. These volunteers are trained and receive spiritual guidance during
the collaboration period.
Additionally, Comunidade Vida e Paz promotes a corporate volunteering program
(CVP) through which around 503 collaborators from 19 companies participate once
or twice in a Street Intervention circuit.
162 790 distributed meals per year
428 contacted beneficiaries
52 548 conversations established
with beneficiaries per year
205 effective referrals to ODS
per year
504 regular volunteers
503 collaborators from 19
companies participating in the CVP
per year
Table 3. Outputs resulting from the program’s yearly activity

31
Theory of Change
What Changes
The SROI measurement tool assesses the social impact of an activity based on its outcomes, which
must be reported by its stakeholders. Therefore, for the purpose of measuring the impact generated
by the Street Intervention program, this analysis will take as its baseline:
- Positive outcomes, which are positive changes in the wellbeing of individuals or
communities triggered by the program.
- Negative outcomes, which are negative changes resulting as side effects from the program
that will actually harm its stakeholders or the society as a whole.
In order to identify and understand all the intended and unintended changes that result from the
Street Intervention program, several workshops with different stakeholder groups were conducted
(see more details on the methodology used and the workshops’ results in Annex A). This
stakeholder-informed process led to the discovery of new outcomes that were not yet considered
and provided important insights about the relevance of each outcome. It also helped clarifying the
way outcomes occur, which enabled the elaboration of a “chain of events” that take place from the
moment that the activity delivers its outputs until the occurrence of change in the stakeholders’
wellbeing.
What changes to homeless people?
By distributing meals every night to the homeless, the program alleviates their suffering from hunger
as they do not have the means to buy proper meals for themselves. These are meals that they can
always rely on, as the vans of Comunidade Vida e Paz work 365 days in the year and make always
the same stops. There may be, however, homeless people who do not experience this alleviation
from hunger due to aggravated alcoholism and drug abuse (some users reject the meals as by the
time the van reaches them they are not even conscious of their body’s needs). Other possible
cause for not experiencing a reduction in hunger is the inexistence of hunger, as in some areas the
homeless people receive meals from other institutions.
The main purpose of the Street Intervention program, though, it not to distribute food, but rather to
render emotional support to the socially excluded in order to help them exiting the streets. This
leads homeless people to feel that they have someone that cares about them and who they can rely
on, and so they feel less lonely. This only happens, of course, when homeless people respond
positively to the volunteers’ approach, which may not happen for two main reasons; either the
homeless suffers from a mental disease or he is constantly inebriated by alcohol or drugs by the
time the van passes. In such situations the volunteers struggle to find a successful approach as
they cannot just “force” interaction - the beneficiaries who do not experience this specific change
correspond to the most extreme cases of social exclusion.

32
Lastly, the Street Intervention program convinces homeless people into going to the Open Dialogue
Space, a welcoming centre run also by Comunidade Vida e Paz which makes a case-by-case
analysis and redirects them to adequate support programs that will help them solving the problems
that got them into becoming homeless in the first place (i.e. illegal immigration, debts, alcoholism,
drug abuse, mental diseases, etc.). Here it is important to differentiate the outcome “redirecting
people from the streets to adequate support programs” from all the possible outcomes that may
result from these adequate support programs; the Street Intervention program’s scope ends when
homeless people exit the streets and so it has no influence in what happens after they enter in a
support program (which can be, for example, rehabilitation and, ultimately, re-integration in society).
Therefore, the change that is attributable to the Street Intervention program is solely the entrance in
such support programs, which is already a big step in the lives of homeless people. Unfortunately,
however, not every person that receives and even welcomes the support from the Street
Intervention teams accepts to take this step towards reintegration, mainly due to aggravated mental
health conditions or substance abuse. These people typically spend the rest of their life in the
streets, if they do not break the law and end up in jail.
What changes to regular volunteers?
As they go out from their comfort zone and get to know well the stories, fears and hopes of
homeless people living in Lisbon, the volunteers develop a greater gratitude for their life and
become more conscious about how important it is to reach out to those who need help in their
community. As a consequence, volunteers who are given the opportunity of integrating a
Street Intervention team feel happier and fulfilled with their lives and become more human
and aware of others’ needs.
What changes to corporate volunteers?
Analogously to the regular volunteers, corporate volunteers experience a feeling of fulfilment and
more humanity as they participate in a night circuit with the Street Intervention teams. This
change, however, is not comparable to the change experienced by the regular volunteers, who
develop a relationship with the homeless people, which constantly reminds them of the civic and
human lessons that they withdraw from this contact. Instead, change in corporate volunteers is
more like an awakening for a reality that they did not know.
What changes to companies?
By offering their employees the chance to participate in the Street Intervention program, firms
improve levels of satisfaction at work that result from a greater identification with the company’s
values and concerns. This “event” also helps to improve work environment as it works as a team
building event, where collaborators interact outside the work environment and destroy barriers that
previously existed. All this leads to more motivated workers, which ultimately will benefit the firm’s
business.

33
Deciding which outcomes to measure
A note must be added regarding the exclusion process of outcomes. In order to validate the
occurrence and significance of any outcome resulting from the Street Intervention program’s
activity, it had to comply with stakeholder-consultation as well as scientific criteria, namely:
(1) Being mentioned in the workshops when stakeholders were asked the question “What
would change in your life if the Street Intervention program ceased to exist?” or,
alternatively, being mentioned in a scientific study on the subject.
(2) Showing a clear causality relationship with the activity’s outputs; one that is possible to
confirm, measure and value.
(3) Showing a confirmation rate that was higher than 50% in the questionnaires implemented
next to the stakeholders.
(4) Being accepted in the report’s review reading done by stakeholders.
As a result of this process, some of the outcomes identified by stakeholders in the workshops were
not included in the analysis, either because they showed a low level of materiality when submitted
to confirmation in the questionnaires, or because it wouldn’t be possible to assess with sufficient
accuracy their causality relation with the Street Intervention program. In Annex A we present a
theory of change showing all the outcomes identified in the first stakeholder involvement stage, as
well as the rationale to not include the ones that are not more deeply discussed and measured in
this social impact analysis. These assumptions are conservative in nature and are meant to reduce
the subjectivity of the analysis, which could otherwise lead to an overvaluation of the final ratio.
There was, however, a “likely” negative outcome that was neither mentioned in the workshops nor
found in any research for studies regarding direct street support to homeless people in Portugal –
and this was “sustaining homeless situation”. This possible negative outcome was on the table at
the very beginning of the analysis, as it was thought to be a natural side effect arising from this kind
of approach. However, this outcome did not come out in the workshops with the stakeholders, even
though this question was always posed to them – in fact, at the workshops, the volunteers as well
as the homeless people and other similar institutions agreed that the Street Intervention program
placed all their effort to take homeless out of the street, and that the “dignifying” support they
provided to them in the streets was necessary to create trust relationships with them but was not
the reason they remained in the street. Despite all of this, the question was again posed in the
questionnaires made to Lisbon’s residents and to the regular and corporate volunteers – again,
about 80% of the inquiries did not consider that sustaining homeless situation was an outcome from
the Street Intervention program.
Also, a final note must be made regarding the limited options for research of outcomes based on
other scientific studies, as social impact assessment is still a new unexplored practice in Portugal.
As mentioned before, even though research has been made as an attempt to combine subjective
and objective data on the analysis, no relevant information was found in Portugal regarding the
studied outcomes (as mentioned before, this project was in part fuelled by the motivation to
contribute to the progress of the Portuguese social economy and find adequate metrics for the
Portuguese reality, and so the adoption of foreign metrics regarding different realities was not an
option).

34
In the following tables we present our Theory of Change for each stakeholder and the relationship
with the activity covered in the analysis scope. We also present the inputs gathered in the
workshops with stakeholders that corroborate the occurrence and materiality of each outcome
included in the analysis
Positive
Outcomes
Reasoning (Chain of Events) Testimony received in Workshops
1. Homeless
people suffer
less from
hunger
The meals received every night from the Street
Intervention Teams represent an important
meal for the homeless people (supper or
breakfast).
2. Homeless
people feel
less lonely
The daily presence of volunteers that show
concern for the homeless’ problems and pay
them company and support comforts them and
helps mitigating feelings of anguish or
abandonment.
3. Homeless
people are
referred to
other support
Volunteers identify new people on the street
and refer them to the Open Dialogue Space,
from where they are directed to adequate
support in order to exit the street (e.g.
rehabilitation/reintegration programs, legal
support to immigrants, health aid).
4. Regular
volunteers are
more humane
and feel more
fulfilled
By getting to know the reality of homeless
people and contributing to its improvement,
volunteers gain a new perspective on their
lives, breakdown old prejudices and
experience a feeling of personal fulfilment for
being able to help others.
5. Corporate
employees
are more
humane and
feel more
fulfilled
By getting to know the reality of homeless
people and contributing to its improvement,
corporate employees gain a new perspective
on their lives, breakdown old prejudices and
experience a feeling of personal fulfilment for
being able to help others.
6. Companies
have more
motivated
employees
When they are given the chance to participate
in a Street Intervention circuit, there is a
noticeable increase in the employees’
satisfaction at work.
Table 4. Positive outcomes included in the SROI
“I searched for the van every night to
get a meal, and when I didn’t I missed
it very much”
User of the Open Dialogue Space
“I know that [the volunteers] are my
friends. If they didn't come, perhaps
instead of 4 litres [of wine] per day, I
would drink a whole barrel”
Homeless Person
“[The support of the Street Intervention
Teams' volunteers] is the starting point
for something new...”
User of the Open Dialogue Space
” Being a part of the Street Intervention
teams changes your life.”
“When I go there, I forget my problems
and give my best.”
Regular Volunteers
“It surpassed my expectations, in such
a way that I became a regular volunteer
in Comunidade Vida e Paz”
Corporate employee
“It is very good for employees because
they are together outside of the work
environment, which allows them to get
to know each other and break barriers”
Contact person from a company

35
Negative
Outcomes
Reasoning (Chain of Events) Testimony received in Workshops
1.Air pollution
The Street Intervention circuits cover 115 km
that are done by the Comunidade’s 4 diesel
vans every day. Carbon emissions from
these vehicles have a negative environmental
impact.
Table 5. Negative outcomes included in the SROI
“The vans' environmental impact is also
a negative social impact”
Regular Volunteer

36

37
Positive Outcomes
This section will substantiate the positive outcomes included in the considered theory of change.

38
Indicators for positive outcomes
Positive outcomes must have indicators that can tell if they have occurred and by how much. In this
analysis, the choice of appropriate indicators to confirm and measure each outcome relied on
stakeholder consultation through workshops (see Annex A). In these workshops, the participants
were asked "In practical terms, what do these outcomes lead to in your day-to-day life?". This
helped identifying variables that can be measured to verify the volume of positive changes,
presented in table 6.
Positive Outcome Indicators
1. Homeless people suffer less from hunger
Number of beneficiaries that received meals and to whom these
meals prevented suffering from hunger
2. Homeless people feel less lonely
Number of beneficiaries that valued the support given by the
volunteers
3. Homeless people are referred to other
support
Annual number of homeless people that come to the Open Dialogue
Space through referrals done by of the Street Intervention teams
4. Regular volunteers are more humane and
feel more fulfilled
Number of regular volunteers that value the participation in the
Street Intervention as important to their wellbeing
5. Corporate employees are more humane and
feel more fulfilled
Number of employees that participated in corporate volunteering
programs over a period of one year, and state that it was a relevant
experience for their personal development
6. Companies have more motivated employees
Number of companies that gave their employees the opportunity to
participate in corporate volunteering programs over one year
Quantity of positive outcomes
In order to quantify the outcome’s indicators, five different questionnaires were conducted in order
to ask the activity’s main beneficiaries about the practical results that the positive outcomes
considered in the theory of change have in their lives.
The quantification of indicators resulted from the extrapolation of the results of the questionnaires
that were collected from samples of each beneficiary group. This process allowed for the exclusion
of some immaterial outcomes from the original Theory of Change (see Annex A) and provided
information about the volume of material outcomes that actually occur. The questionnaires and their
results are also available in Annex A at the end of this document.
Table 6. Indicators to measure positive outcomes

39
Positive Outcome
Quantity
Value Reasoning
1. Homeless people suffer
less from hunger
231
Application of the confirmation rate (54%) that resulted from the questionnaire
to homeless people to the universe of 428 homeless people who are
beneficiaries
2. Homeless people feel less
lonely
403
to homeless people to the universe of 428 homeless people who are
beneficiaries
3. Homeless people are
referred to other support
205
Number of homeless people directed to the Open Dialogue Space by the
Street Intervention teams, according to records regarding the year of 2013
4. Regular volunteers are
more humane and feel more
fulfilled
491
to regular volunteers to the universe of 503 regular volunteers of the Street
Intervention teams
5. Corporate employees are
more humane and feel more
fulfilled
394
to corporate volunteers to the universe of 504 corporate volunteers that
participated in the corporate volunteering program in 2013
6. Companies have more
motivated employees
19
Number of companies whose employees participated in the corporate
volunteering program in 2013 (confirmation rate resulting from questionnaires
to the participating companies was 100%)
Table 7. Quantity of positive outcomes

40
Duration of positive outcomes
The duration of outcomes indicates the amount of time during which outcomes impact the life of
beneficiaries. In the case of the Street Intervention program, all positive outcomes were considered
to be short-termed and occur during the intervention period studied by the present analysis (1 year),
not extending beyond it.
In this analysis, the estimation for the duration of each outcome was incorporated in their valuation
process (e.g. if the positive outcome derived from directing homeless people to a shelter lasts for 2
months, then its valuation will monetize the impact for a 2-month shelter use). The estimation of the
duration of each positive outcome of the activity assumes different reasoning, as described in Table
8.
Positive Outcome
Duration
Value Reasoning
1. Homeless people
suffer less from hunger
1 year
Since the outcome consists in the fulfilment of a basic need, its impact does not
extend beyond the intervention period.
2. Homeless people feel
less lonely
1 year
Due to a high turnover rate of volunteers, friendship relationships established
between them and the homeless people are not very deep. As such the impact
does not extend beyond the intervention period.
1 year
(rehab)
Typically a rehabilitation or reintegration programme lasts for a year. As this
analysis only accounts for the impact that can be attributed to the Street
Intervention teams (i.e. entrance in the rehabilitation program), it doesn’t
account for the impact of the programme itself (e.g. addiction treatment), which
would undoubtedly last much more than one year.
2 months
(shelter)
The length of stay of homeless people in shelters varies greatly, however,
based on the experience of the Open Dialogue Space’ staff, we estimate it is on
average two months.
1 year
(other
support)
Based on advice from specialists, it is estimated that the impact of legal support
to immigrants and a medical appointment to people suffering from a disease
has an effect that lasts approximately 1 year.
4. Regular volunteers
are more humane and
feel more fulfilled
1 year
The impact of the outcome is often described by the volunteers as a “constant
reminder of what really matters ". It is understood that this impact does not
extend beyond the intervention period.
5. Corporate employees
are more humane and
feel more fulfilled
1 month
The corporate volunteers’ participation in a circuit results in gaining a new
perspective on life, which that also means that they become keener to help
others. It is considered that these changes are less impacting than those
experienced by regular volunteers, producing effects that last no longer than 1
month.
motivated employees
3 months
It is considered that an increase in employee satisfaction within a companies
motivated by a one-time event lasts for around 3 months.
Table 8. Duration of the positive outcomes

41
Valuing positive outcomes
The monetization of outcomes is one of the fundamental elements of an SROI analysis, as it not
only shows how important they are relative to the value of other outcomes, but it also allows for the
comparison between an activities’ social value and the investment it requires. However, most
outcomes of a social intervention cannot be traded in an open market or are intangible. The
calculation of the SROI allows for the use of financial proxies to value these outcomes.
A financial proxy of a positive income is an approximation of what would be the value that
beneficiaries would be willing to give in exchange for the increase it creates in their wellbeing. By
using of financial proxies, the SROI methodology converts all the material social value generated by
the program to the same unit of measurement (the euro) used previously to value the invested
resources.
Taking as a starting point the qualitative descriptions supplied by stakeholders about the
importance of these positive changes in their lives, the adequate valuation methods were chosen
according to the nature of the outcomes and the characteristics of the stakeholders that experience
them:
Market Prices
This method is very effective if there is a service in the market that generates a very similar impact
to the outcome that is being valued. We may then use that service’s market price to value the
outcome, as, by definition, that price reveals how much an average person is willing to pay for that
kind of impact in her wellbeing. However, in order for this assumption to work, the stakeholders
experiencing the outcome at stake must have similar preferences to those of a typical consumer.
Average Expenditure in Portugal
Another way of using information available in the market for monetizing outcomes is through
average expenses incurred by a normal consumer for goods and services that provide a similar
impact to the outcome that is being valued. This technique is especially useful when used to assess
the value of satisfying essential needs, as the beneficiaries’ valuation of essential goods/services
Assumptions behind the choice of valuation methods for outcomes
Currently there is no accepted generic procedure to monetise social positive outcomes. Moreover,
there are not yet benchmarks for financial proxies adequate to the Portuguese reality that can be used
to value the outcomes of the Street Intervention program.
As such, there was a big effort to involve stakeholders in the process of deciding what should be the best financial
proxies for each outcome, according to their subjective valuation to the changes these outcomes present in their lives.
This approach was chosen over adopting financial proxies used in other foreign SROI studies as we consider the
existing differences in the living reality would limit the accuracy of the valuation.

42
can be much higher than their market price (e.g. receiving a new change of clothes for someone
who has no clothes). The average expense incurred by the general public in the satisfaction of
those needs portrays its importance in one’s wellbeing.
Value Games
Value games may be the answer in cases where outcomes have a strong subjective nature (e.g.
value of feeling less lonely) or where the beneficiaries’ preferences cannot be compared to the
preferences of the majority of consumers (such is the case socially excluded minorities as the
homeless people). Value Games consist in a technique to lead stakeholders to state their
preferences in an unbiased manner. It gauges the relative importance of an outcome to a
beneficiary by comparing its utility with that of other goods and services that exist within
beneficiary’s bundle of preferences (see page 44).
Impact in Income
Lastly, positive outcomes can be converted in direct changes in a stakeholder’s income, if they lead
to situations where, for example, stakeholders start earning a salary, or avoid unemployment, or are
able to save money. The outcome’s value is thus equivalent to the amount of money by which
stakeholders’ income has increased or has not decreased.
Figure 13. Methods to create financial proxies

43
Table 9 presents the monetary valuation given to each positive outcome, indicating which
assessment methods were used and the reasoning behind their calculation. All the details regarding
this process and the sources it relies on can be seen in Annex D at the end of this document.
Positive Outcome Quantity
Value Assessment Method Reasoning
1. Homeless people suffer
less from hunger
880 € • Market Prices
Value of 365 meals received annually, according
to the price of an equivalent meal in a supermarket
(2,4€).
2. Homeless people feel
less lonely
790 €
• Value games
• Average
Expenditure in
Portugal
Value of receiving volunteer support for one year,
which resulted from value games conducted with
4 homeless people. The values subsequently
assigned to the value cards corresponded to the
average expenditure in Portugal for that
good/service (see page 44).
Weighted market price of a one-year
rehabilitation programme (2.500€), a medical
appointment (50€) and a stay in a hostel for 2
months (540€), according to the rate of referrals
to each of these supports.
4. Regular volunteers are
more humane and feel
more fulfilled
1 200 €
• Market Prices
• Value Games
Value attributed to the incremental life
satisfaction gained through the participation of 24
Street Intervention circuits, based in the price of
24 therapy sessions (50€). This valuation is
corroborated with the results from value games
made with 6 regular volunteers, which was
slightly higher, amounting to 1 400€ and in which
the participants stated that the circuits were like
therapy sessions.
5. Corporate employees
are more humane and feel
more fulfilled
Value attributed to the incremental life
satisfaction gained through the participation of 1
Street Intervention circuit, based in the price of a
therapy session (50€).
motivated employees
Average price companies are willing to pay for an
equivalent team building event according to its
current price in a market.
Table 9 Value of positive outcomes

44
Value Games used to value outcomes
Value Games were used to value the effects experienced by homeless people and volunteers as a result of the
friendship and support relationships they establish between each other (i.e. decrease in loneliness for the homeless
people and humanization/personal fulfilment for the volunteers).
In order to do so, representatives of each stakeholder group were interviewed individually. Each interviewee was
presented with a series of value cards portraying goods and services that exist in the market and that they use in their
daily life. From these value cards, the stakeholders selected the ones they saw as important and ordered them by the
level of the utility (for this, they were asked to answer the question “If you had to give up one of these things for one
year, which one would you chose? And after that?...”).
Next, it was asked that they placed a card portraying the outcome meant to be valued in the list of value cards already
order on top of the table. In this way, without ever mentioning money, it was possible to understand the relative
importance of the outcome for the stakeholders.
The last step was finding out the range in which its monetary value should fit, which was limited by the financial value of
the value cards directly above and below the outcome card. The monetary value associated to value cards above and
below the outcome card was assessed in different ways for each group of stakeholders:
• volunteers were asked how much money they spent per year for that good/service (e.g. “How much to you
think you spend per year in restaurants?”)
• in the case of homeless people, the value cards were associated with goods that satisfied basic essential
needs in an annual basis, and thus their financial value was determined by the annual expenditure an
average person in Portugal had with those goods per year.

45
Negative Outcomes
This section will substantiate the negative outcomes included in the considered theory of change.
Quantifying and valuing Air pollution
The method chosen to quantify and monetize the social cost of pollution followed indications given
by the Global Value Exchange website (www.globalvalueexchange.org).
Variable Value Reasoning
Indicator N/A Kg. of Carbon emissions from Comunidade’s vans
Quantity 5 489
Carbon emissions from the 42.000 km travelled annually by the meal distribution vans,
calculated using the new economics foundation (nef) environmental impact calculator
Duration 1 year The emission of carbon to the atmosphere lasts as long as the activity lasts
Value 0,02 € Price paid by European companies for each Kg of carbon emission
Figure 12. The program’s negative outcomes (history of change)
Legend:
• Ouputs
• Distance travelled considered in the SROI
Negative outcomes included in the SROI
Table 10. Air Pollution’s quantity and value

46
The Impact of the Street Intervention Program
What is the impact generated solely by the Street Intervention program?
Calculations of the impact originated from the Street Intervention activity must take into account
several context factors that may contribute to the social value attributed of the program’s outcomes.
As such, to accurately assess the program’s social impact, all the impact that has not been created
by it must be deducted from its outcomes’ value. This means excluding the impact that any other
intervening parties may have had (e.g. decrease in homeless loneliness due to support given by
other entities with similar activity) or any impact that would still occur if the intervention had not
taken place (e.g. some volunteers seeking for other sources of fulfilment if they didn’t volunteer for
Comunidade Vida e Paz).
Deadweight and Attribution rates
Impact deduction rates must be used every time that, during the process of measuring and valuing
outcomes, it is not possible to separate the value generated by the Street Intervention teams from
the value generated by exterior context factors. This may happen, for example, when beneficiaries
can’t distinguish and value separately the support they receive by two similar institutions. As such,
this analysis uses attribution and deadweight rates to eliminate impact generated by other context
factors that might have been accounted for during the calculations of the value of the program’s
outcomes.
Deadweight, Attribution and Drop-off Rates
• Deadweight Rate is the % of the impact attributed to an outcome that would have
occurred anyway, regardless of the existence of any institutional intervention (in other
words, it is the impact that results the natural evolution of things).
• Attribution Rate is the % of the impact attributed to an outcome that has derived from the
intervention of other entities with a similar activity.
• Displacement Rate is the % of the outcome that is over counted it displaced other outcomes that
would have happened if the Street Intervention program didn’t exist. In this analysis, no
displacement was reported by stakeholders or mentioned in a scientific research on the subjects at
study.
• Drop-off Rate is the % of deterioration of the impact after each year since the intervention stopped.
In this analysis there is no outcome with a duration that extends over the intervention period, so this
deduction rate was not used.

47
Tables 11 and 12 outline the process to determine deadweight applied to outcomes. This
methodological tool was used to distinguish, for example, different ways of experiencing change
within the stakeholders groups, namely:
• In the outcome “Homeless people feel less lonely”, a different deadweight rate was attributed to
two sub-groups that show different levels of loneliness before they have any contact with street
support: (1) homeless people sleeping in shelters or abandoned houses and (2) homeless
people sleeping in the street.
• In the outcome “Regular volunteers are more human and feel more fulfilled”, a different
deadweight rate was attributed to three sub-groups that show the different levels of significance
that volunteering activities have in the volunteers’ well-being: (1) volunteers who consider that
being part of the program is a major factor of their personal fulfilment; (2) volunteers who
consider that being part of the program is quite relevant for their personal fulfilment; (3)
volunteers who consider that being part of the program relevant but not determinant for their
personal fulfilment.
Positive Outcome Deadweight Determination
1. Homeless people suffer less from
hunger
Probability that homeless people would get similar meals as the ones
distributed by the Street Intervention teams (either coming from friends
and family or acquired by the homeless people themselves).
Deduction of the importance of the outcome according to the number of
homeless people that are not in extreme loneliness situation (because
they still have contact with family, friends or neighbours).
support
N/A (it is considered that the homeless people who are referred to the
Open Dialogue Space by the Street Intervention teams would not be
taken there by any other context agents)
4. Regular volunteers are more humane
and feel more fulfilled
regular volunteers who do not consider it as one of the main factors that
lead to an increase in their personal fulfilment.
5. Corporate employees are more humane
corporate employees who do not consider it as one of the main factors
that lead to an increase in their personal fulfilment.
6. Companies have more motivated
employees
N/A (it is not considered probable that the type of satisfaction coming
from the opportunity offered by the company to participate in
volunteering programmes could naturally arise from normal work life)
Negative Outcome Deadweight Determination
1. Air Pollution
N/A (carbon emissions from Street Team vans would not be released
into the atmosphere if the activity didn’t exist)
Table 11. Deadweight determination for positive outcomes
Table 12. Deadweight determination for negative outcomes

48
As with the outcome’s indicators, the deadweight rates were quantified according to the answers
collected from the questionnaires answered by the stakeholders. Tables 13 and 14 present the
deadweight rates that will reduce the value of the program’s outcomes.
Positive Outcome
Deadweight Rate
Value Reasoning
1. Homeless people suffer less from hunger 60%
Percentage of respondents to the questionnaire for homeless
people who stated having an alternative to the Street Team
Meal, in case they do not get it.
2. Homeless people feel less lonely 30%
Weighted average of the deadweight rates attributed to two
different states of loneliness (according to answers to the
questionnaires). For homeless people lived in the street, 10%
of deadweight was attributed, and for homeless people who
live in hostels, rented rooms or houses 50% of deadweight
was attributed.
support
0% N/A (see page 47)
feel more fulfilled
30%
Weighted average of the deadweight rates attributed to three
different engagement states. The calculations followed the
proportion of respondents to the questionnaire for regular
volunteers who stated that, regarding their personal fulfilment,
being part of a Street Intervention teams is: a main
influencing factor (10% deadweight); a strong contributor
(20% deadweight); is relevant but not essential influencing
factor (50% deadweight).
30%
Weighted average of the deadweight rates attributed to three
different engagement states. The calculations followed the
proportion of respondents to the questionnaire for corporate
volunteers who stated that, regarding their personal fulfilment,
having participated in a Street Intervention circuit was: a main
influencing factor (10% deadweight); a strong contributor
(20% deadweight); a relevant but not essential influencing
factor (50% deadweight).
employees
Negative Outcome
Deadweight Rate
Value Reasoning
Air Pollution 0% N/A
Table 13. Deadweight rates for positive outcomes
Table 14. Deadweight rates for negative outcomes

49
Tables 15 and 16 justify, case by case, whether there is the necessity to apply attribution rates to
the outcomes included in this SROI analysis. This need arises when there are external context
agents whose contribution to the occurrence of outcomes has not yet been assessed and must,
therefore, be discounted from the outcome’s overall value by means of the application of an
attribution rate.
Positive Outcomes Attribution determination
hunger
N/A (the outcome value only reflected the market price of the meals
distributed by the Street Intervention teams, therefore not including any
reduction of hunger caused by meals distributed by other entities)
Reduction in loneliness caused by the support given by volunteers from
other entities. The value of this outcome as calculated in this analysis
accounts for the value that any support received by volunteers has for
homeless people, as it was not possible for the beneficiaries to
distinguish the importance of the Street Intervention teams' specific
support, as opposed to the one provided by volunteers of other
institutions.
support
N/A (the value of the outcome only accounts for the homeless people
who were referred to the Open Dialogue Space by Comunidade’s
volunteers, not including the ones who came from other sources).
N/A (the value of the outcome as calculated in this analysis only
accounts for the value that participating 24 times per year in the Street
Intervention teams has for regular volunteers, therefore not including
any extra value that might come from participating in a regular basis in
other volunteering associations)
accounts for the value that participating in one Street Intervention circuit
has for corporate employees, therefore not including any extra value
that might come from participation in other corporate volunteering
programs or any other team building events).
employees
accounts for the employee motivation resulting from participating in the
corporate volunteering program, therefore not including any added value
from participation in other team building events)
Negative Outcomes Atribution
Air Pollution
N/A (the value of the outcome as calculated in this analysis only reflects
the price of each kg of carbon emitted from the vans)
Table 15. Attribution determination for positive outcomes
Tabela 16. Attribution determination for negative outcomes

50
In order to better quantify the attribution rate applied to the impact of reducing loneliness among the
homeless people, a workshop was made with entities that have similar activity to the Street
Intervention program (i.e. direct street intervention), where the 11 participants were invited to reflect
as a group on the weight of each entity's action towards this outcome.
Positive Outcome
Attribution Rate
Value Reasoning
1. Homeless people suffer less from hunger 0% N/A (see page 49)
2. Homeless people feel less lonely 80%
There are 4 other entities that fight loneliness among
homeless people in the same intervention area as the
Comunidade’s Street Intervention program. Therefore it is
considered that on average, each entity has a 20%
attribution rate to this positive outcome.
support
feel more fulfilled
employees
Negative Outcome
Attribution Rate
Value Reasoning
Air Pollution 0% N/A (see page 50)
Table 17. Attribution rates for positive outcomes
Table 18. Attribution rates for negative outcomes

51
Taking into account the previous analysis, the following social values have been determined for
each outcome:
Positive Outcome Quantity
Financial
Proxy
Total Value
of Positive
Outcomes
Deadweight
rate
Attribution
Rate
Positive
Impact
hunger
231 880 € 203 280 € 60% 0% 80 955 €
2. Homeless people feel less lonely 403 790 € 318 370 € 30% 80% 44 325 €
support
205 970 € 198 850 € 0% 0% 198 936 €
491 1 200 € 589 200 € 30% 0% 414 939 €
5. Corporate employees are more
humane and feel more fulfilled
394 50 € 19 700 € 30% 0% 13 723 €
employees
19 580 € 11 020 € 0% 0% 11 020 €
Negative Outcome Quantity
Financial
Proxy
Total Value
of Negative
Outcomes
Deadweight
rate
Attribution
Rate
Negative
Impact
Air Pollution 5 406 0,02 € 117 € 0% 0% 117 €
Positive Impact Negative Impact Total Impact
763.898 € 117 € 763.781 €
Table 19. The program’s positive impact
Table 20. The program’s negative impact
Table 21. The program’s total impact

52
It can be assessed from this analysis that the Street Intervention program generates an annual
positive impact that, when translated into monetary units, amounts to 763.781 €. This is the
incremental social value produced over a period of one year, which means that, if this program
ceased to exist, society as a whole would lose an equivalent of 763.781 € in its general wellbeing.
It is also worth of note that the outcome with the highest social value actually does not benefit those
considered to be the program’s primary beneficiaries, but rather its regular volunteers. This
conclusion may justify the effort made by Comunidade Vida e Paz to enhance its wide network of
volunteers and provides the organization's internal management with a new vision about activity's
results.
The graph of figure 15 presents the impact of the program’s positive outcomes as a percentage of
the program’s overall impact.
The humanization and personal fulfilment of regular volunteers is the outcome
with the largest share of the total impact made by the program (54%). Referring
homeless people to other support (26%) and reducing their suffering caused
from hunger (11%) also have a meaningful impact. With less impact are the
reduction of loneliness in homeless people (6%), the motivation of corporate
employees in their work (2%) and the humanization and personal fulfilment of
corporate volunteers (1%).

53
SROI and Complementary Analysis
SROI
Social Return On Investment (SROI) may be expressed as a ratio that relates the total value of the
activity’s impact with the value invested in that same activity.
Social Impact
Total impact generated over one year of activity
amounts to 763.781 €.
Total investment required over one year of activity is
465 366 €.
Investment (Inputs)
It is concluded that the Street Intervention program provided by Comunidade Vida e Paz is efficient in the creation of social
value, having a total impact overcoming the investment value in 60%.
Taking into account positive and negative outcomes as well as the inputs consumed…
Street Intervention SROI = 1 : 1,6 For each 1 € invested in the activity, it generates a social value of 1.6 €

54
Considerations on the obtained ratio
More than a ratio, the SROI is a history of change
The ratio obtained in this analysis (1:1,6) is the final synthesis of the entire process of measuring
and valuating the Street Intervention program’s resources and impact. Its comprehension entails a
deep understanding not only about the specific technical details of the intervention under scrutiny,
but also about the context in which it operates and the subjective changes it creates as reported by
its beneficiaries. The ratio is therefore, a numerical translation of a set of quantitative and qualitative
information.
The reading of the ratio should never be dissociated from the reading of the analysis report
It can only be possible to fully grasp the meaning of the SROI ratio when there is also an
understanding about the complete set of interpretations, assumptions and decisions taken
alongside its calculations, which were meant to make the analysis more accurate regarding the
context of the activity and the subjective reality of its beneficiaries.
It is important that the ratio is not seen as an absolute and objective truth
The value of the SROI ratio should be read as an indicator – regarding not only the efficiency with
which Comunidade Vida e Paz uses its resources concerning the Street Intervention activity, but
also the level of relevance that this activity has to its stakeholders.
More than a comparison tool, the SROI ratio is a management tool
This ratio will hardly be used to compare between the program’s SROI and the SROI of a program
from another social organization, as both numbers will certainly reflect two different contexts and
will consequently be supported by different assumptions about each organization’s subjective
reality. As such, the great benefit that comes from ratio is rather that it enables a regular and
rigorous monitoring of the activity's performance in generating and maximizing its social impact.
Sensitivity analysis for outcome valuation, attribution and deadweight
Conservative Assumptions
The present report is the result of a conservative analysis and may reflect an undervalued ratio, since: :
• One of the main goals carried out by the Street Intervention teams is the establishment of contact with homeless
people living in the streets that were not before in touch with Comunidade Vida e Paz. However, the potential value
resulting from this link - which can mean a person's permanent exit from the street - is not fully accounted for in this
analysis.
• Some outcomes identified as relevant by the stakeholders were not included in the measurement of impact due to
the impossibility to accurately grasp and measure their causality relationship with the Street Intervention activity.
• This analysis consisted in a pilot project for the implementation of a social impact evaluation system in Comunidade
Vida e Paz. As such, several extrapolations were required in order to obtain the annual values for non-accounting
inputs, based on conservative assumptions.

55
By taking the current ratio as a “baseline”, isolated variations were made regarding, on one side, all
the financial proxies and, on the other, all the deadweight and attribution rates in order to assess
the influence that the assumptions underlying these variables have on the overall SROI ratio.
Testing simultaneously for assumptions on duration and financial value
The monetisation of the value for each outcome takes already into account its duration. Hence, the
assumptions adopted upon the determination of financial proxies to value outcomes already incorporate
the assumptions regarding decisions about the outcome’s duration. Therefore, the vertical axe of the
graph in figure 16 reflects sensibility tests to both variables.

56
The graph from figure 16 shows that a 20% variation on the deadweight and attribution rates would
have an inverse impact on the SROI ratio (Δ = - 28%), which means that increasing these rates by
1% would result in a 1,4% decrease of the SROI ratio .
On the other hand, a 20% variation on financial proxies meant to value outcomes is shown to have
a smaller impact in the SROI ratio (Δ = 18%). This means that increasing the monetary values of
outcomes by 1% would lead to an increase in the SROI ration by 0,9%.
Generally speaking, upon 20% variations in financial proxies and deduction rates, the ratio varies
between 1,2 and 2,1. Hence, despite a considerable variation of assumptions, the SROI remains
above 1, which proves the consistency of the main conclusion of this study: the money invested in
the Street Intervention program generates a substantial positive social return to its stakeholders and
society in general.
Sensitivity analysis for specific assumptions on outcome valuation and deadweight
The sensitivity analysis concerning specific assumptions used in this report aims at finding out what
would be the final SROI ratio if it other decisions were made along the study. For this, three
scenarios were created, each of them reflecting viable alternatives for specific aspects of the report
upon which a choice had to be made by the author regarding what would be the assumption that
would most accurately portray the subjective reality of the activity and its stakeholders.
Scenario A: changing the financial proxy used to value the decrease in loneliness of homeless people
• Baseline assumption: 787 € (result of value games with 4 homeless people)
• Alternative assumption: 450 € (estimated average expense with social activities by Portuguese people over one year)
•
Scenario B: changing the financial proxy used to value the humanization and personal fulfilment of regular volunteers
• Baseline assumption: 1.200 € (price of 24 therapy sessions)
• Alternative assumption: 1440 € (result of value games with 6 regular volunteers)
•
Scenario C: changing the deadweight rate deducted from the value of routing homeless people to support programmes
• Baseline assumption: 0% (considering that the homeless people who are referred to the Open Dialogue Space by the
volunteers would not be taken there by any other context agents)
• Alternative assumption: 15% (proportion of Open Dialogue Space users that come from sources other than volunteering
associations)

57
The graph from figure 17 shows three scenarios in which one assumption was replaced by an
alternative one, in order to test if these decisions impacted the analysis significantly.
The graph in figure 17 shows that the SROI ratio is unchanged when scenarios A and C are tested,
which refer to both the choice of a different financial proxy to value the decrease in loneliness of
homeless people and the determination of a deadweight rate to deduct the value of referring
homeless people to other support.
The only scenario that causes a relevant impact in the final ratio is scenario B, which proposes a
higher monetary valuation for regular volunteers' humanization and personal fulfilment. The new
proposed financial proxy for this outcome is based in the result of value games conducted with 6
regular volunteers. Implementing it would increase the ratio by 12%, which means that the social
return of the Street Intervention teams would be of 1,8 € per each 1 € invested in the activity.

58
Sensitivity analysis for input valuation
By taking the current ratio as a “baseline”, isolated variations were made regarding, on one side,
the quantity of outcomes as extrapolated from the questionnaire’s results and, on the other, all the
financial values that were attributed to non-cash inputs (what we called during this analysis “non-
accounting inputs).
The graph from figure 18 shows that, upon 20% variations in inputs valuation and outcome
quantification, the ratio varies between 1,3 and 2. The SROI remains thus well above the threshold
(1:1).

Forecast SROI of the Street Intervention Program_Report 2015

Forecast SROI of the Street Intervention Program_Report 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Forecast SROI of the Street Intervention Program_Report 2015

Similar to Forecast SROI of the Street Intervention Program_Report 2015 (20)

Forecast SROI of the Street Intervention Program_Report 2015