Reports Database

Bairnsdale Recycling Enterprises Incorporated is a not for profit incorporated association which has established a social enterprise (trading as the Bairnsdale Tipshop) to tackle some significant social and environmental issues in its local area. It operates in Bairnsdale, a small city (population ca 13 000) situated in the eastern tip of the state of Victoria, Australia.

Like many other municipalities in Australia, Bairnsdale has a mounting problem in dealing with the waste that is created in the area. At the same time it is a region which at the time of the inception of the program had a higher unemployment rate than the average for the state. In particular, the local youth unemployment rate was, and remains, at disturbingly high levels (around 30%).

The original idea for a Tipshop was investigated by representatives of various organisations involved with the local community in 2007 following the construction of a shed at the landfill site by Sustainability Victoria (an agency of the Victorian State Government) and East Gippsland Shire Council. After negotiations with the council it was arranged to establish the shop in the building and the program commenced in 2009. After some modifications to the original concept, the Tipshop has been running in its present form since 2010 as a viable concern giving employment to previously unemployed local people. By the period of time analysed in this report (July 2013 to June 2014), the Tipshop was employing six people on a part time basis (including a business manager who was not long term employed) and generated an income of $188 000 in the year covered by the investigation.

The Tipshop has developed a model which involves taking goods that would have otherwise been put into landfill and offering them for sale in the shop set up at the landfill site. An important part of the operation, which has been crucial in its success financially, is that many of these goods have value added to them. This has been achieved by checking (testing and tagging) electrical goods to see that they are safe for resale and repairing or servicing goods such as lawn mowers and bicycles which increases their resale value significantly.

Another aspect of the program is that many of the staff employed at the shop have brought some skills to the operation which are useful to it. This has meant that the program has been more selective in choosing staff than originally anticipated. Significantly, it has meant that a minority of the employees has been drawn from the original target group of the young unemployed (those aged between 15 and 24 years old).

There is a chronic shortage of affordable housing in Victoria, particularly in Melbourne. It is estimated that over 105,000 Australians, including 23,000 Victorians, are homeless. Fortyfour percent of these homeless people are women. Some groups of women appear to be at greater risk of homelessness, including women fleeing family violence, migrants escaping conflict, women exiting the correctional system and older women with little savings.

Women’s Property Initiatives (WPI) was formed in 1996 to address the lack of affordable, appropriate, secure, long-term housing for low-income single women and single mothers. WPI works to build a secure future for disadvantaged women and their children by providing them with long-term, safe, high-quality and affordable homes. The reasons women seek housing with WPI are a complex web of individual causes, however, financial stress and family violence are common causes of housing vulnerability. The homes are made more affordable for women on low incomes, with rents set at no more than 75% of market rent or 30% of household income.

Women’s Property Initiatives commissioned a Social Return on Investment evaluation to understand the value and impact of housing on their tenants. This report provides the results of the Social Return on Investment evaluation that analyses the social value created with the provision of 66 homes to women and their families in a 12-month period over 2014-2015.

“The core purpose of this research study is the social valuation of the Post Office Network. Post Office Limited operates the largest retail network in the UK with more than 11,500 branches and delivering a wide range of products and services across post, financial and government services.

This study seeks to understand and quantify the value that people and businesses place on the Post Office network. It was commissioned by The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (“BEIS”) and delivered independently of Government and the Post Office by YouGov and London Economics.”

“Talent Match is a national test and learn programme with a focus on how we understand what works in helping young people who are unemployed. At the heart of the programme is a core belief that young people matter. We need to support them to fulfil their potential; from becoming ‘work ready’, securing employment or taking up enterprising opportunities. This progression is important. Long-term unemployment can seriously harm the future life prospects of young people, from lower earnings, further unemployment and more ill health later in life.

The programme has not been without its challenges. Numerous partnerships have told us that the young people they are dealing with are not just furthest away from the labour market, they
have multiple and complex issues and barriers which prevent them from accessing work. These needs take time to address and overcome but with the correct wrap-around support they are not insurmountable and progress can be made. A key aspect of this progression is to continue to demonstrate and share the principle findings from Social Return on Investment studies, to not only show the economic impact but more importantly the human impact these interventions can and do have.”

“The purpose of this report is to examine the extent to which Street UK is achieving its goal of creating greater financial inclusion. The report was compiled using our own client data, surveys and case studies in addition to comparing the demographics of our clients with the UK population. Our research has found that;

• Financial support is not restricted to having a solely financial impact in the borrower’s life. 79% of our surveyed clients agree that getting a loan from Street UK had more than just a financial impact. These include improvements to their level of stress, overall health, self-esteem and relationships with family and/or friends

• An individual’s previous credit history will not always be an accurate reflection of their ability to repay future loans. Over 70% of the people we lend to have a past default on their credit file, but over 90% of the loans we advance are repaid

• Many people are struggling to meet the everyday costs that those on higher incomes can take for granted. Our loans are most commonly used for home improvements, Christmas and holiday expenditure

• Short-term loans do not have to be expensive. They can be provided both online and on the high street for reasonable interest rates that cover the costs and associated risk of lending. Our online APR of 201% and our in-branch APR of 95% continue to under-cut other high-cost lenders

• Ethical lending can be sustainable if additional services are offered by finance companies. Our back office services business contribute to the Street UK Group’s overall sustainability by helping deliver scale economies and subisidising the cost of senior management, back office admnistration and our IT infrastructure

• Given these findings, it is necessary to protect those who are most vulnerable in society and to provide low income households with access to affordable finance without the risk of them falling into unmanageable volumes of debt”

“This report – produced under the auspices of Pro Bono Economics for the national employment charity Tomorrow’s People – evaluates the socio-economic benefits of the Working-It-Out (WIO) programme. Since its introduction in 2007, the WIO programme has helped more than 2,000 socially-disadvantaged young people aged 16-18 find employment or develop new skills through training and education. Our analysis, which updates an earlier study by FTI Consulting, finds that each £1 invested in the WIO programme between 2007 and 2014 has on average delivered economic benefits worth £3.80. This estimate is subject to some uncertainty, but nonetheless presents a strongly positive picture of the WIO programme’s contribution to the lives of the young people that participate in it as well as British society more broadly.

Relative to the FTI study, we use additional data for the period 2012-2014 and also make a handful of methodological adjustments intended to deliver more robust results. These adjustments change both the level and the composition of the economic benefits delivered by the WIO programme, with the result that we estimate a higher benefit-cost ratio than FTI. We also find that the BCR has increased in latter part of our sample period, driven in the main by a significant expansion of the WIO programme – with no dilution in its effectiveness – while costs have been controlled. This is clearly an encouraging finding that suggests the WIO programme continues to develop and respond to changes in the economic environment. Nonetheless, we recommend that, going forward, TP should collect more granular data on the socio-economic characteristics of participants in the WIO programme in order to help identify more accurately the underlying drivers of the estimated BCR and how it evolves over time. It will also be beneficial to collect longitudinal data on the post-programme earnings of WIO participants, as well as their ongoing participation in the labour market, especially as the new national living wage is introduced.

As with all analyses of its kind, our study relies on a number of methodological simplifications and assumptions. The specific way in which the model is calibrated can have a significant impact on the final results, so our estimates should be treated with a degree of caution, especially when considered in an absolute sense. We have more confidence in our analysis of how the BCR has evolved over time, but even in this context small methodological adjustments can have a large impact. Future work could usefully aim to limit the sensitivity of the results to the underlying assumptions, although we recognise that there are practical constraints on what can be achieved while retaining analytical tractability. These methodological limitations should not, however, detract from the headline message that the WIO programme offers genuine economic benefits.”

“This report provides an outline of the Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis conducted to evaluate Getting Out To Work (GOTW), funded by The Big Lottery Reaching Communities Fund and managed and operated by Tomorrow’s People. Interviews with key stakeholders have informed the analysis that employs the principles of the SROI framework to understand what has changed in the lives of GOTW’s clients and monetise these important changes.

In line with the mission of the national charity, the overriding intention of GOTW is to provide intensive employment support to men and women after a time in prison, or serving their sentence in the community, or those people who are at risk of offending behaviour.

However, it is recognised that many people in these situations require additional support in their quest for work. For that reason, one-to-one support relationships built around an individual action plan that offers support in the way that individuals require it – be that vocational training, help accessing funding opportunities, practical advice, communication with employers or on-going contact and support including In-Work Support – provides clients with improved likelihood of finding and securing sustainable employment over the long term.

Comparing the overall value of outcomes to the relative investments cost required to create the benefits reveals a social return on investment of £4.16: 1. This indicates that for each £1 of investment, £4.16 of social impact is created.

Whilst the result of the analysis is positive, this report also importantly identifies where significant improvements are possible in the capture and management of social impact information. GOTW clearly positively impacts on the lives of those it works with, but without more understanding it is impossible to appreciate how important different changes are, how to manage these, and what the overall value is.”

“This report provides an outline of the Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis conducted to evaluate Knowsley Positive Progress (KPP), funded by the Big Lottery’s Reaching Communities Fund and managed and operated by Tomorrow’s People. Interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders have informed the analysis that employs the principles of the SROI framework to understand what has changed in the lives of KPP’s clients and monetise these important changes.

KPP provides support to the people of Knowsley with experience of health issues (including mental health), or other barriers to employment, training, education or volunteering. The analysis has measured and valued these important outcomes, but has also identified significant behavioural outcomes that have also contributed to considerable social value being created.

Comparing the overall value of aggregated outcomes to the relative cost of the investments required to create the benefits reveals a social return on investment of £7.51: 1. This indicates that for each £1 of investment, £7.51 of social impact is created.”

“This study focuses on the social value1 created by Turner Contemporary. The research and analysis was undertaken by the COaST research group at Canterbury Christ Church University on behalf of Turner Contemporary. The methods used are based upon SROI (Social Return on Investment) principles, and set out to measure social value created relative to the value of the resources invested. Data was collected using a range of methods including interviews with key personnel and outside stakeholders, focus groups, workshops, observation, surveys and desk research.

The report analyses and calculates the social value created by Turner Contemporary during the gallery’s April 2015–March 2016 financial year. The report is intended to be used in the gallery’s strategic planning by helping the organisation understand where its activities achieve the most social value in relation to its investments, and to manage future return in its business planning. It will also be used as an advocacy document to report to stakeholders, and to support applications for sponsorship, resources and funding.

This report contains technical terms that may have specific meanings in the context of this study. Definitions can be found in the glossary at the back of the report.”

“Chototel was conceived out of a need to provide good quality, dignified housing solutions in a market that fails to cater to those at the bottom of the pyramid. Soaring rentals and housing prices are fuelling housing poverty resulting in vacant residential projects and a greater number of people living in substandard housing. There is clearly a mismatch in the supply and demand of housing, particularly with regard to the demands of the urban poor. There is a gap in the market that, if filled successfully, has the potential for phenomenal social impact.

Chototel, formed from the words “chotu” (meaning small) and hotel, is rolling out an exciting project building ‘super-budget hotels’, where tariffs start from US$2/day with uninterrupted utilities, clean water and social infrastructure such as crèches, community kitchens and open, green spaces.

Access to decent affordable shelter is so fundamental to the health and well-being of people and the smooth functioning of economies that it is embedded in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Yet, in developing and advanced economies alike, cities struggle with the challenge of accommodating their poorest citizens. There is a phenomenal migration of the rural poor to cities, such that they now constitute the majority of the urban population in developing countries; yet their living conditions represent a tragic failure on the part of urban planners.”

Safaricom aspires to use its mobile telecommunications products and services to improve the quality of life and contribute to sustainable livelihoods for people throughout Kenya.

The company wanted to understand how successful it has been in achieving this goal and how it can increase the value it creates for society in Kenya still further.

In order to do so, the company chose to partner with finance and sustainability professionals from KPMG in South Africa and Kenya to apply KPMG’s True Value methodology.

The methodology “monetizes” the socioeconomic and environmental impacts of an organization and its products and services, i.e. it quantifies them in financial terms.

“The contribution of US companies in Ireland goes far beyond the economic impact. US companies are also responsible for significant social transformation in their local communities and nationally by providing innovative and inclusive social impact programmes. Helping to build a fairer and more inclusive Ireland, with equality of opportunity for all, is a core value for our members and our Chamber. This Report shows how our member companies and their people bear witness to this core value. It forms an important part of our wider campaign to highlight the positive impact on society our members and their teams make.”

“Ex post analyses of major sporting events show that the benefits for the organizing countries are often greatly over-estimated in advance. A major portion of the proceeds (e.g., tickets, broadcasting rights, marketing) goes to the organizing sports federation, while most of the costs are borne by the organizing country. Nonetheless, there is fierce competition between candidate countries for the right to organize tournaments like the Olympic Games and the World Cup. We demonstrate this paradox through a social cost-benefit analysis of holding the 2018 World Cup in the Netherlands and Belgium. The results show that national pride and pleasure come at a price. The re-search also shows that a complete ex ante study is needed to reveal the balance between the organization of a sporting event and the costs that are associated with it.”

“In August 1997 the Mexican government introduced a key component of its overall development and poverty alleviation strategy, the PROGRESA program, in the most marginal rural areas of the country. The expansion of the program across localities took place in phases. By the final phase11 of the program in early 2000, the program included nearly 2.6 million families in 72,345 localities in all 31 states. This constitutes around 40% of all rural families and one ninth of all families in Mexico. The total annual budget of the program in 1999 was around $777 million, equivalent to just under 20% of the Federal poverty alleviation budget or 0.2% of GDP.

The program gives cash transfers to mothers in households classified as “poor”, these transfers being conditional on child attendance at school and regular visits by family members to health clinics for preventative check-ups. Households with young children also receive food supplements to improve their nutritional status. Although the program is essentially a demand-side intervention, an important dimension of the program involves the explicit recognition that, for such an intervention to be effective at achieving its ultimate objectives, co-ordination with the supply side is essential. To this end, the education and health ministries are expected to plan to allocate resources to areas where substantial demand increases are experienced in order to avoid deteriorating quality on the supply-side that may frustrate the achievement of program objectives.

In this report we are concerned with the application of a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) to PROGRESA. The application of SCBA to the evaluation of the program requires one to identify both the impacts and the costs of bringing about these impacts, and then to compare both of these to determine the overall welfare impact of the program and how effectively the program achieves these welfare impacts relative to alternative policy instruments. When monetary values can be attached to these impacts they are referred to as “program benefits” and the application of cost-benefit analysis (CBA) then involves determining whether benefits exceed costs and by how much. In the absence of a monetary valuation of impacts, one is restricted to the use of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), which identifies the cost of bringing about a given impact.”

“Better quality data on costs and benefits of competing investment options in children’s services is becoming available. In this paper, we describe the translation of one model developed for Washington State translated for use in the UK. The paper describes the approach and method used to develop the economic model, and adapt it for use in another country. Results from the United States are compared with those from the United Kingdom. The opportunity to apply these methods to improve child outcomes at reduced cost to the taxpayer is explored. The limitations and need for future development of the methods are outlined.”

“Background: How valuable is public investment in treatment for drug abuse and dependency in the real world of everyday practice? Does drug abuse treatment provide benefits and how are they valued? What are the costs of obtaining outcomes and benefits? Cost–benefit analysis attempts to answer these questions in a standard analytic framework.

Aims: This paper reviews cost–benefit analyses with scientific merit so that analysts will have a current picture of the state of
the research. It will also give public decision-makers information with regards to the available evidence for policy purposes.”

“This report summarises the first phase of a three phase study to develop a financial cost:benefit analysis specific to supported employment for people with learning disabilities. It is being conducted in collaboration with Kent Supported Employment Agency (KSE). It aims to develop a cost benefit framework that is robust enough to accurately identify the potential costs and savings to the local authority and taxpayer of delivering the KSE service. Phase 1 ran from January to March 2010 and involved developing the cost benefit framework and collecting the relevant information from KSE.”

“The application of Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has grown significantly over the last decade with an increasing amount of healthcare resources being allocated to the activity. Faced with increasing demand for health care services, healthcare systems must ensure that resources are allocated to achieve the maximum health benefits. Wanless (2002) stressed the importance of this effective use of resources for the NHS. While the application of health impact assessment (HIA) has increased, there does not seem to have been a
comparison of the costs and benefits involved in this process. For this reason, the Department of Health commissioned York Health Economics Consortium to undertake a cost benefit analysis of HIA, with particular regard to:

• Best practice in policy, programme and project decision making with particular
reference to local strategic partnerships (LSPs);
• Indicators about when and what areas HIA should be used to maximise its impact
and effectiveness, particularly in relation to addressing health inequalities;
• Investment made in HIA compared with the outcomes achieved in the form of
recommendations to decision makers that were implemented;
• Benefits of carrying out HIA compared with incorporating health into other impact
assessments (e.g. SEA);
• Recommendations about how HIA can be used most efficiently and effectively at
LSP level.”

“In the current design of international climate change policy, a narrow application of social cost-benefit analysis with emphasis of short-term efficiency of resource allocation appears to be the leading criterion. This explorative study sets out to integrate – from a societal perspective – in cost-benefit analyses of climate policy measures long-term impacts to the extent possible. Externalities such as favourable impacts on air pollution problems and energy supply security risks are included in the proposed analysis framework. The objective of this explorative study is to compare different greenhouse gas abatement options on the basis of a social cost-benefit analysis with a view to inform the policy-making process. The numerical application of the proposed analysis framework focuses on ten technical measures in three different sectors: energy and industry, transportation and buildings. Quantification of externalities of air pollution is based on literature approaches and for impacts on energy security of supply risk a novel approach is suggested. The results are given in monetary value ranges and show that taking into account ancillary externalities can significantly change the net social cost of certain mitigation options and the net social cost of a given climate change programme.”