FSES Social Impact Measurement Model

(SIMM)

Ted Kwan, CFA

Social Impact (vs financial impact)

Business = Busyness (business ≠ commerce)

FSES Social Impact Measurement Model (SIMM) Adapted from Kirkpatrick (1954) Four-level measurements

Beginning with the END in mind, Starting with Beneficiary first

“Experience without the test of logic is … chitchat, and that logic without the test of experience is … absurdity.” - Peter Drucker, The Observer

L1: Subjective Well Being, Satisfaction w/ the

program, Psychological, Feel good

L2: Knowledge, Skills,

Attitude

L3: Behavior

L4: SROI/

Cost effectiveness

Beginning with the

END in mind.

Identifying the most appropriate beneficiaries . . . can help program leaders to determine which outcomes are most relevant and most achievable. (Stanford Social Innovation Review 2016)

Theory of Change (Why)

Computing the Cost per beneficiary

Design the Kirkpatrick 4-level

Measurement & Other indicators

Theoretical Ground Valuation Outcomes & Survey Design

Steps to SIM

Defining Missions and Objectives

Identify Beneficiaries &

Stakeholders

Logic Model &

List the activities

Dig out the relevant Survey Form OR Design your own

Compute the SROI

Determine any Workfare, Govt savings or other

savings

Recheck the principle of Parsimonious

& Materiality

Compiling the Impact Report

Provide a benchmark for each outcome

SIMM – 社創校園通通識 計劃 (SENSE)

Beneficiaries/

Stakeholders Outcome/ Impacts Measurement

Secondary school

students (~600 nos.)

Level 1 對社企體驗工作坊的滿意度

Level 2 對社企 / 社創機構的熟識程度

對社企 / 社創機構所幫助 / 關注的群體的了解程度

Level 3 願意以行動幫助社會上有需要的群體

4.29

2.64 3.67 (+28%)

2.39 3.56 (+29%)

78%

Teacher (11 nos.) Level 1 對培訓課程的滿意度

Level 2 增加理解及認同社會創業的精神

理解社創教育有助多方面培育學生

Level 3 願意以行動支持良心消費

會嘗試在日常教學上實行社創教育

4.13

4.30

3.90

92%

82%

Funding Outcome Unit cost

Grant = $4M for 3 years Target no. of Trained teachers = 50

and Trained students = 6,000

Unit cost per head

= $660

SIMM – TSW Dawn Market

Beneficiaries/

Stakeholders

Outcome/ Impacts Measurement Type Benchmark or Monetary

Proxy

Hawker L1

Life Satisfaction

L2

Knowledge in business

Understand the community

L3

New friends

Good friends

Close friends

2.4 3.6 (+50%) OR

6.5 on a scale from 0 to 10

2.6 4.5 (+73%)

2.7 4.4 (+63%)

38.4 friends

9.9 nos.

2.3 nos.

5.6 (HK Avg)

$126 $253 per day

--

Customer 27; Hawker 6;

Govt people 5.

Helped once before

Willing to lend 2 month’s

income

Customer L4

Dollar saved on goods

Discount to market prices

$1.3million

Input ($) Outcome ($) Ratio

Salary for RSW for 3 years = 1.5m

2 professor, 5 RSW & 6 volunteers = 360k

Total = 1.86m

Income hawker = 8.9m

Saving on CCAS = 3.7m

Discount to market price = 1.3m

Total = 13.9m

1: 7.5

SIMM – Fullness Salon

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

Pre Post

Changes in Deviate Youth

SWB Skills

Mission Through the operation as a hair salon, provides job retraining opportunity for deviate youth in Hong Kong, helps them to reintegrate into society in two years time.

Social Impacts Outcomes Benchmarks

No. of job offered

SWB increment

Felt being respect scoring

Peer relationship scoring

Skill improvement

Holistic improvement

No. of new friends made

Of which are good friends

Can find a new job after 2 year

6 youth

2.4 3.2

4.3

4.0

3.08 3.27

3.6 out of 5.0

14 nos.

4 nos.

78%

3 nos. per salon

3.25 (HK average)

4.0

4.0

3.5

4.0

n.a.

n.a.

50% (CSD average)

Social Investment

Initial Investment

Revenue from customers

Profit (if any)

Workfare to the youth

$800,000 per salon

$3,280,000 per year

$70,000 per year

$588,000 per year

Return to Stakeholders

Social return on investment (SROI)

Financial Return to investor

Social content of consumption

74% pa (social impact)

8.7% pa (sustainability)

18% (social content)

Theory of Change Self determination theory

The less specific the goal, the harder it is for communities to agree on whether they have achieved success

“A Question of Outcomes” C. Whistler & J. Grossman Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2016

Identifying the most appropriate beneficiaries . . . can help program leaders to determine which outcomes are most relevant and most achievable.

“A Question of Outcomes” C. Whistler & J. Grossman Stanford Social Innovation Review. Winter 2016

Quality of Measurement

1. Relevant/ Material – a typical person would like to know this

information when making decision (e.g. re-offending rate, feeling on

family, etc.)

2. Parsimonious

3. Comparable (Benchmarking - time series and cross sectional)

• Do not make unlike things look alike (do not add unlike items)

• Look for benchmark (for cross-sectional)

4. Verifiable – two independent observers can agree on the value

5. Supported by research

• Faithful without bias, sampling issue, avoid small sample bias.

• Range & standard deviation, statistical significance

6. Cost constraints – about 5% of funding

人生有希望

Subjective Well-being as an Ultimate Measure

受助 助人自助 自助助人

How to determine our Well-being? (World Econ Forum)

The single definition is life satisfaction:

Overall how satisfied are you with your life, these days? (0 to 10, from “extremely dissatisfied” to “extremely satisfied”)

- END -