The document summarizes Dr. Richard Hazenberg's presentation on social impact measurement and the Social Impact Matrix. Some key points: - The presentation discusses the collaboration between the University of Northampton's Institute for Social Innovation and Impact and Vietnam's Center for Economic Development Studies to understand and measure social impact in Vietnam and the UK. - It introduces reactions to social impact measurement, reasons to measure impact, and approaches to choosing a measurement method. - The Social Impact Matrix is presented as a tool that was developed to holistically map and measure social, economic and environmental outputs, outcomes and impacts across key areas of a social enterprise. - The process of engaging social enterprises with the Social Impact Matrix is described.

1. Social Impact Measurement &
the Social Impact Matrix
Dr Richard Hazenberg
Institute for Social Innovation & Impact
University of Northampton

2. Presentation Overview
• CEDS/ISII Collaboration
• Social impact measurement – Usual reactions
• Why measure SI?
• How to measure SI?
• Evaluating programmes.
• Social Impact Matrix
– UK
– Vietnam
• Summary

3. CEDS & ISII
• VNU University of Economics and Business and the University of
Northampton have an institutional partnership based upon a formal
collaboration between the Center for Economic Development
Studies and the Institution for Social Innovation and Impact.
• CEDS and ISII are collaborating to understand the:
– Similarities/differences between SEs in Vietnam/UK.
– Vietnamese/UK needs in relation to SI Measurement.
– Applicability of the SI Matrix to the Vietnamese SE sector.
• This is a British Academy funded project (Newton Fund).
• In the future, to create an online web-based SI Measurement tool for
Vietnamese SEs.

4. Social Impact Measurement
The usual reactions I often see
when delivering this
presentation…

5. Stay away, it’s too complicated!

6. It’s time consuming & boring!

7. It’s too expensive!

8. So Why Measure Social
Impact?
• Provides evidence of the impact that you are having.
o Good evidence for stakeholders, funders & beneficiaries.
• Allows for organisational learning.
o Are you always having a positive impact?
• Can help secure contracts/investment. In the UK (NCVO, 2016):
o 81% VCSEs earned through competitive contract delivery (49%
in 2000/01).
o Government funding fell by 44% between 2008 and 2013.
• Transition in third sector relationship with the state/NGOs/investors:
o Desire for evidenced-based policy-making.
o Austerity & scarce resources.

9. Choosing?
• There is no right or wrong answer, the decision has to be
shaped by you.
• 3 main influencing factors are:
o Motivation
 Why are you engaging in SI measurement?
 What do you want to get out of it?
 What impact do you want it to have?
o Readiness
 How soon can you engage in SI measurement?
o Capacity
 Staff expertise & time.
 Financial resources.
 External contacts/networks.

10. Design Phase Implementation Phase Evaluation Phase
Additional
Stakeholders
Funders
Practitioners
Evaluators
AND/OR
AND/OR
Outcomes
Impact
Output
Evaluation
Report
Multi-
Interventio
n Design
First Contact
Participant
Evaluation
Interventi
on y
OR
Interventi
on x
Redesig
n
Time 1
Data
Evaluation Design
Hazenberg et al. (2014)

11. The Social Impact Matrix

12. Measuring Social Impact
• McLoughlin et al. (2009) developed the SIMPLE
methodology that seeks to measure:
– Outputs: Direct and easily identifiable
(i.e. jobs created).
– Outcomes: Individual beneficiary benefits
(i.e. increased confidence).
– Impact: Wider benefit to society (i.e. reduced social
security payments).
• We combined this approach with an examination of the
triple bottom-line to create the ‘Social Impact Matrix’.
– Economic, social and environmental.

13. Social Impact
Matrix
Economic
Outputs
Outcomes
Impacts
Specific Tools
Specific Tools
Specific Tools
Social
Outputs
Outcomes
Impacts
Specific Tools
Specific Tools
Specific Tools
Environment
Outputs
Outcomes
Impacts
Specific Tools
Specific Tools
Specific Tools
Social Impact Matrix

14. Category
Sub-category
(where applicable)
DataInput Category
Sub-category
(where applicable)
DataInput Category
Sub-category
(where applicable)
DataInput
Full-timeN
Part-timeN
Full-timeN NI
{(Income) -(NIA=
£5,328)]x 1.12=NIx
Part-timeN
Full-timeN
Part-timeN
Full-timeN
Part-timeN
Nascent
Entrepreneurs
Supported
N
Self-employment
Tax
CorporationTax
(ProfitsMade x 1.2)
=Associate's
CorporationTax
(ACTx)
Start-upsCreated N
Early-stagers
Supported
N
EstablishedEnterp.
Support
N
OwnWorkshop
Progression
N
ImpactSector
Employment&
Entrepreneurship
Output Outcome
GSEscale
(Schwarzer&
Jerusalem1995)
Volunteering
N.O.volunteers
engagedinthe shop
N
VolunteerHours
Worked
Hrs
Social self-efficacy VolunteerSSE
Trainee Volunteer
GSE
Associate
Volunteers
Trainee Volunteers
Employment
Enterprise Support
Café/Shop
Alumni Businesses
Impact
Attitude to
Enterprise
Associate Volunteer
ATE
ATEscale (Athayde,
2009)
(Volunteerhours
workedx £8.80) =
Volunteeringfiscal
value (VFVx)
VolunteerValue to
GF
Volunteering
Impact
Unemployment
Benefits
Job-seeker
allowance x N.O.
employeesSelf-employment
welfare (where
applicable)
Otherbenefits
Include where
applicable
SSEScale (Smith&
Betz2000)
Income Tax
General self-
efficacy
Newemployment
tax
Newemployment
welfare (where
applicable)
[(Income) -(PTA=
£10k)]x 1.2=Tx
Include where
applicable
Otherbenefits
Unemployment
Benefits
Job-seeker
allowance x N.O.
employees
Example Matrix Section

15. • When engaging with the University of Northampton and the SI
Matrix, a social enterprise:
– Engages in full meetings with the research team, so that all aspects of the
business & impact can be understood & mapped out.
– Has a holistic SI Matrix produced that details all the areas that they deliver
impact.
– A collaborative process of selecting only key strategic areas for measurement is
undertaken.
– The relevant tools and reporting frameworks, as well as
methodological training, are provided to the social enterprise.
– The social enterprise then collects the data before sending
this to the research team.
– The research team then audits and analyses the data.
– A research report is then produced for the social enterprise,
badged by the University as a sign of independence
and quality.
SIM Process

16. • An overview of the partners that have engaged with the SI Matrix in
the UK is presented below. In total to date, 42 social enterprises
have engaged with our tool:
SIM Partners in UK

17. • Our research with CEDs has identified the following barriers to SI
Measurement in the UK & Vietnam:
Vietnam & the UK
1. Financial Capacity.
2. Human Resources.
3. Intellectual Knowledge.
4. Time.
1. Financial Capacity.
2. Human Resources.
3. Intellectual Knowledge.
4. Time.

18. Summary
• There is no perfect measure of SI measurement.
– Organisations need to find the approach that works best for them and aligns with
their strategic aims.
• The ‘Social Impact Matrix’ provides a route to mapping & measuring
social impact that is:
– Grounded in prior research & theory.
– Allows for a tailored approach to individual organisations.
– Is not purely fiscally based (i.e. like SROI).
• This type of measurement is considered best practice by the EC (EC
Social Impact Sub-group, Feb 2014).
• Newton Fund output 2016: Publication of the SIM framework for
Vietnam will be made available on the CEDS website for
Vietnamese social enterprises to engage with.

19. Thank you
for listening
Any questions?
Dr Richard Hazenberg
Email: richard.hazenberg@northampton.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)7803924987