IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v64y2017icp136-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Social Return On Investment (SROI): Problems, solutions … and is SROI a good investment?

Author

Listed:
  • Yates, Brian T.
  • Marra, Mita

Abstract

The conclusion of this special issue on Social Return On Investment (SROI) begins with a summary of both advantages and problems of SROI, many of which were identified in preceding articles. We also offer potential solutions for some of these problems that can be derived from standard evaluation practices and that are becoming expected in SROIs that follow guidances from international SROI networks. A remaining concern about SROI is that we do not yet know if SROI itself adds sufficient benefit to programs to justify its cost. Two frameworks for this proposed metaevaluation of SROI are suggested, the first comparing benefits to costs summatively (the resource→outcome model). The second framework evaluates costs and benefits according to how much they contribute to or are caused by the different activities of SROI. This resource→activity→outcome model could enable outcomes of SROI to be maximized within resource constraints (such as budget and time limits) on SROI. Alternatively, information from this model could help minimize the costs of achieving a specific level of return on investment from conducting SROI. Possible problems with this metaevaluation of SROI are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Yates, Brian T. & Marra, Mita, 2017. "Social Return On Investment (SROI): Problems, solutions … and is SROI a good investment?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 136-144.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:64:y:2017:i:c:p:136-144
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014971891630249X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2016.11.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Herman, Patricia M. & Avery, Deirdre J. & Schemp, Crystal S. & Walsh, Michele E., 2009. "Are cost-inclusive evaluations worth the effort?," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 55-61, February.
    2. Yates, Brian T., 2009. "Cost-inclusive evaluation: A banquet of approaches for including costs, benefits, and cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses in your next evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 52-54, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ngarava, Saul & Mushunje, Abbyssinia & Chaminuka, Petronella, 2020. "Qualitative benefits of livestock development programmes. Evidence from the Kaonafatso ya Dikgomo (KyD) Scheme in South Africa," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Marra, Mita, 2022. "Productive interactions in digital training partnerships: Lessons learned for regional development and university societal impact assessment," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    3. Winatha, Arvin, 2020. "Metode Popular SROI dan Aplikasinya di Kehidupan Nyata," OSF Preprints j4qus, Center for Open Science.
    4. Poulter, Helen & Bolton, Ronan, 2023. "Embedding broader values in the regulatory model: An analysis of Ofgem's consumer value proposition for the natural gas distribution sector," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    5. Maria-Teresa Bosch-Badia & Joan Montllor-Serrats & Maria-Antonia Tarrazon-Rodon, 2020. "The Capital Budgeting of Corporate Social Responsibility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-28, April.
    6. Andre Poyser & Ayesha Scott & Aaron Gilbert, 2021. "Indigenous investments: Are they different? Lessons from Iwi," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 46(2), pages 287-303, May.
    7. Yates, Brian T., 2021. "Toward collaborative cost-inclusive evaluation: Adaptations and transformations for evaluators and economists," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    8. Bellucci, Marco & Biggeri, Mario & Nitti, Carmela & Terenzi, Linda, 2023. "Accounting for disability and work inclusion in tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    9. Banke-Thomas, Aduragbemi & Nieuwenhuis, Sonja & Ologun, Adesoji & Mortimore, Gordon & Mpakateni, Martin, 2019. "Embedding value-for-money in practice: A case study of a health pooled fund programme implemented in conflict-affected South Sudan," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    10. Kemi Adeyeye & John Gallagher & Helena M. Ramos & Aonghus McNabola, 2022. "The Social Return Potential of Micro Hydropower in Water Networks Based on Demonstrator Examples," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(18), pages 1-21, September.
    11. Mercedes Ruiz-Lozano & Pilar Tirado-Valencia & Antonio Sianes & Antonio Ariza-Montes & Vicente Fernández-Rodríguez & Mª Carmen López-Martín, 2020. "SROI Methodology for Public Administration Decisions about Financing with Social Criteria. A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yates, Brian T., 2021. "Toward collaborative cost-inclusive evaluation: Adaptations and transformations for evaluators and economists," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. King, Julian, 2021. "Expanding theory-based evaluation: Incorporating value creation in a theory of change," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    3. Kevin N. Griffith & Lawrence M. Scheier, 2013. "Did We Get Our Money’s Worth? Bridging Economic and Behavioral Measures of Program Success in Adolescent Drug Prevention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-28, November.
    4. Hornack, Sarah E. & Yates, Brian T., 2017. "Patient and program costs, and outcomes, of including gender-sensitive services in intensive inpatient programs for substance use," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 139-147.
    5. Mihic, Marko M. & Todorovic, Marija Lj. & Obradovic, Vladimir Lj., 2014. "Economic analysis of social services for the elderly in Serbia: Two sides of the same coin," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 9-21.
    6. Persaud, Nadini, 2021. "Expanding the repertoire of evaluation tools so that evaluation recommendations can assist nonprofits to enhance strategic planning and design of program operations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    7. Anderson, Nathan, 2022. "Synthesizing frameworks and tools to develop a plan for evaluating an online data utilization curriculum for teachers," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Peterson, Christina & Skolits, Gary, 2020. "Value for money: A utilization-focused approach to extending the foundation and contribution of economic evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    9. Kato, Shoko, 2021. "Social performance measurement adoption in nascent social enterprises: Refining the institutional model," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 15(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:64:y:2017:i:c:p:136-144. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.