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 ofincome

Has some source ofincome

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 showersthanks toComunidade's help

Weekly showers bymeans other thanComunidade's help

Does not take showerson a weekly basis

20%

52%

28%

Legal Status Has up-to-date documentsthanks to Comunidade'shelp

Has up-to-datedocumentos by meansother than Comunidade'shelp

Does not have up-to-datedocuments

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.


referred to other support

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).


referred to other support 872 € • Market Prices

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

50 € • Market Prices

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 580 € • Market Prices

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).

2. Homeless people feel less lonely

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).


and 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 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 0% N/A (see page 47)

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)

2. Homeless people feel less lonely

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 0% N/A (see page 49)


feel more fulfilled 0% N/A (see page 49)


and feel more fulfilled 0% N/A (see page 49)


employees 0% N/A (see page 49)

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 €


and feel more fulfilled 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).


59

Measures to Maximize Social Impact

As previously mentioned, this study suffers from the typical limitations of a first-time SROI analysis,

as it deals with insufficient historical data, which may decrease the precision of its impact

measurement. Nevertheless, this first impact study paves the way for future evaluations, as

Comunidade Vida e Paz now has the means to regularly monitor its social impact through the

measuring system implemented during this project.

This SROI also represents a new head start for a number of possible new approaches to assess

how to best manage the Street Intervention program. Namely, as with a typical productivity analysis

regarding the various operations within a business, the methodology makes it possible to study in a

separate way the social value of each outcome and to verify whether it justifies all the resources

allocated to make that outcome happen. As such, this study promotes a clearer view about what

measures may help maximizing the program’s social value by allowing for:

(1) Comparison between the amount or resources invested in each macro-activity and the

social value that is generated by it (and verification of whether this relationship is consistent

with the program's social goals);

(2) Identification of the most efficient actions that are being undertaken within the program,

according to the amount of positive impact that these actions generate have in lives of its

stakeholders.

The next chapter presents some hints on initiatives that might increment the social impact at study,

to be considered and complemented by the program’s management team and eventually by its

other stakeholders.

Thoughts on how to carry on regular impact measurement

In order to continuously monitor the evolution in the Street Intervention program’s performance at

creating social value, Comunidade Vida e Paz must carry out some regular activities:

(1) Monitoring the program's outputs through daily reports;

(2) Tracking each homeless person that is referred to other support, through personal files at

the Open Dialogue Space in order to accurately quantifying changes (outcomes);

(3) Implementing on a yearly basis the questionnaires already tested in this study in order to

assess the evolution of outcome confirmation rates per year;

(4) Conducting on a bi-annual basis the workshops and value games already tested in this

study in order to identify new outcomes and needs felt by the stakeholders.


60

Table 22 shows specific recommendations on how to improve impact assessment regarding each

outcome in the future.

Outcome How to improve impact assessment

1. Homeless

people suffer less

from hunger

Further investigation is recommended regarding:

- Quantity: take record of the “level of access to food security” for each person upon their first contact and keep

rechecking every 3 months whether that level has changed.

- Deadweight: establish a control group and take a record of their “access to food security” levels, in order to have

an idea of what is the natural evolution of this aspect in homeless people that do not have contact with any

institutional support.

- Attribution: take record of “level of access to other institutional support” for each person upon their first contact

with the program and keep rechecking every 3 months whether that level has changed, in order to compare this

evolution with that of the “level of access to food security”.

2. Homeless

people feel less

lonely


- Quantity: take the record of the “level of loneliness” for each person upon their first contact with the program and

keep rechecking every 3 months whether that level has changed.

- Deadweight: establish a control group and take a record of their “loneliness” levels, in order to have an idea of

what is the natural evolution of this aspect in homeless people that do not have contact with any institutional

support.

- Attribution: take record of the “level of access to other institutional support” for each person upon their first

contact with the program and keep rechecking every 3 months whether that level has changed, in order to compare

this evolution with that of the “level of loneliness”.

3. Homeless

people are

referred to other

support


- Duration: establish lines of communication with the support programs that homeless people are referred to in

order to know how long do they stay in this programs (and thus, out of the streets).

4. Regular

volunteers are

more humane and

feel more fulfilled

&

5. Corporate

employees are

more humane and

feel more fulfilled


- Quantity: take the record of the “level of personal fulfilment” as well as the “level of willingness to help others” for

each volunteers before their first participation in the program and keep rechecking every 6 months whether those

levels have changed.

- Duration: gather a sample group of volunteers who agree to stay in touch after they leave the program, in order

to check their levels of personal fulfilment and willingness to help others time goes by.

- Attribution: take record of “level of participations in other social projects” for each person upon their first contact

with the program and keep rechecking every 3 months whether that level has changed, in order to compare this

evolution with those of the “level of personal fulfilment” as well as the “level of willingness to help others”.

6. Companies

have more

motivated

employees

No further investigation is needed.

Table 22. Recommendations on how to improve impact assessment for evaluative analysis


61

Thoughts on resource allocation

In order to verify whether the strategic priorities adopted by the Comunidade’s internal management

are aligned with the results of this analysis, we must look at the resource allocation within the Street

Intervention program.

This analysis, illustrated by figures 18 and 19, shows that at the moment of the writing of this report,

the majority of resources were allotted to the storage and distribution of meals. However, the view

provided by both graphs reveals that 56% of the resources used in the program are allocated to

storing and distributing meals whereas the outcome resulting from this (i.e. homeless people suffer

less from hunger) only represents 11% of the program’s total impact. There is thus a considerable

disproportion between the investment made in meal storage and distribution activities and the

actual impact that this investment generates.


62

Thoughts on the efficiency of each action

To increase the efficiency of a program in generating social impact, it is important to understand

understand the efficiency of each one of the program’s actions. As such, it is useful to assess which

is the social return (SROI) of each action undertaken within the program, taking into consideration

how many resources are allocated to its execution and how much social value results from that

investment. This analysis is intended to inform the internal management of Comunidade Vida e

Paz, in order to help in the decision making regarding resource allocation and the strategic

definition of the program’s goals. The following figure shows the SROI of the main components of

the Street Intervention program.


63

The graph in figure 20 demonstrates the important role played by the friendship relationships

established between volunteers and homeless people in the creation of social value. In fact, the

development of the program’s large Network of regular volunteers turns out to be the most efficient

action in terms of social return, generating 2,9 € worth of wellbeing for the volunteers (in form of

personal fulfilment) for each 1 € invested. Likewise, street support to homeless people also shows a

high social return, since for each 1 € invested it creates 1,9 € worth of wellbeing for the homeless

people (in form of reduced loneliness and referrals to other support). Both of these actions rely on

the personal relationships and bonds created during the circuits, which proves their relevance in

relation to the program’s positive impact.

Another important conclusion is that actions related to meal distributions require the largest amount

of investment and yet are the least efficient at producing social value for homeless people. The

social return of meal distribution actions is negative, as for each 1 € invested, they only create 30

cents worth of impact in the wellbeing of homeless people. However, it is important to note that

stakeholders stressed at the workshops the importance of the meals as a means to attract

homeless people to the vans. It is then important to stress that the social return ratio of the Meal

distribution action in Graph 9 might be undervalued as it excludes its role of window-opener for

further social value. Nevertheless, it is clear that the size of the investment made in this action is

disproportionate as compared with the value it creates. Therefore, there is the need to think of new

less costly alternatives to create the same impact.

Summary of assumptions adopted for input attribution to the program’s main actions

• Actions towards providing support in the streets to homeless people were considered

to require 90% of the total volunteering time. This rate corresponds to an estimate of the

time spent by volunteers in conversations with homeless people, according to the number of

conversations that occur over one year, relative to the total number of contacts made (See

Annex E).

• Accounting figures were attributed to an action according to the expenses it would require if it would

be the sole action within the program. In this way inputs are not distributed by actions and they can be

repeated in order to assess the efficiency of each action (e.g. since all actions require volunteering time,

accounting expenses related to volunteer coordination were attributed to all actions for the purpose of this

analysis).

• Head office costs of running Comunidade Vida e Paz attributable to the Street Intervention program

were allocated to all actions.


64

Measures to maximize social impact

The following measures for incrementing the social impact of the Street Intervention program have

been determined:

Support for homeless people should be at the top of the organization’s strategic priorities,

since it is the second most efficient activity within the program. Intensification of this support can be

achieved by increasing the number of conversations held during each circuit and by deepening the

relationships between volunteers and homeless people. These measures will also result in a closer

monitoring of each homeless person, which will ultimately lead to a larger number of people referred

to other support programmes.

Corporate Volunteering programs should be encouraged, as they show a high level of

effectiveness (an average of 3,2 € worth of social impact generated for each 1 € invested), and

currently still represent a small portion of the total impact.

The investment in meals distribution should be reconsidered, as the total social value

generated by this activity does not seem to justify the large investment it currently requires.

Although the importance of meal distribution is sustained by stakeholders for promoting access to

homeless people, less resource-consuming alternatives should be considered in order to create this

link in a more efficient way.

Evaluative SROI analysis should be conducted in a regular basis (preferably every year) in

order to monitor the program’s performance and assess whether the measures implemented to

increment its social value have been successful. These analysis must rely on as much historical

data as possible (that is, requiring the minimum of extrapolations), so that its results are as close to

reality as possible.

Beneficiaries should be monitored along their path towards reintegration in society. This will

allow for more informed and rigorous decisions about quantity and duration of outcomes and will

provide important data to assess the validity of current deadweight and attribution rates.

Further joint reflection on the creation of social value by the Street Intervention teams

should be fostered among the stakeholders, based on the results of this report. From this final

consultation upon sharing the present SROI conclusions, new ideas to increase the activity’s

positive impact may arise.


65

ANNEXES

ANNEX A - ENVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS: TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS

ANNEX B - EXTRAPOLATING INPUTS: ASSUMPTIONS.

ANNEX C – MONETISING NON-ACCOUNTING INPUTS: ESTIMATES

ANNEX D – MONETISING OUTCOMES: FINANCIAL PROXYS

ANNEX E – THE PROGRAM’S ALLOCATION OF INPUTS: ASSUMPTIONS


66

ANNEX A – ENVOLVING STAKEHOLDERS: TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS

Workshops

Goals

In the initial stage of the analysis, three workshops were conducted with stakeholders in order to

collect helpful insights to inform the definition of the Theory of Change and the identification of

indicators to measure the program’s impact. The participants of these workshops represented the

four groups of stakeholders considered to know more deeply the program’s activity and context:

• Regular volunteers

• Homeless People

• Entities engaging in similar activities (i.e. street intervention)

• Institutional Partners (Santa Casa da Misericórdia)

Methodology

The workshops were based on a participatory approach, which relied on image presentations and

open questions, aimed at triggering and guiding collective reflection. Participants were thus invited

to think individually in each question, write their opinions in post-it notes, and then present them to

the group for debate.

The questions posed to the groups were general at first (e.g. What would happen if the program

didn’t exist?), and progressively focused on each outcome (e.g. What impact does this outcome

have on your life?), and on how to find suitable indicators to measure those changes (e.g. What

does this impact translate into in your day-to-day life?).

In the workshop held with representatives of entities engaged in similar activities, there was also a

dynamic to assess their view on the role that each entity had in Lisbon’s network of direct street

support to homeless people. Participants were thus invited to individually classify the contribution of

each entity to the various types of support homeless people receive in Lisbon.


67

Results

Stakeholder Group Nr. of

Participants

Characterization of

Participants Main Results from the Discussion

Homeless People 8

Homeless male adults

(representing around

90% of Lisbon’s

homeless population),

with different periods

of stay on the streets

• A better understanding of the needs felt by homeless

beneficiaries while living in the street and of the role

played by the program in their resolution;

• Identification of new outcomes for homeless people as

a result of the support and meals received from the

Street Intervention teams;

• Identification of suitable indicators to measure

outcomes;

• Consultation about outcomes’ duration.

Regular Volunteers 12

Male and female adult

volunteers coming

from different

professional

backgrounds and with

different lengths of

service in the program

• A more deep common understanding about the

program;

• Identification of new outcomes for the program’s

volunteers;

• Identification of suitable indicators to measure

outcomes;

• Consultation about outcomes’ duration.

Entities Engaged in

similar Activities

(Street Intervention)

11

Representatives of 9

entities that provide

regular street support

to homeless people in

Lisbon

• A deeper common understanding about the program

and its role in Lisbon’s network of support to homeless

people;

• Identification of new outcomes;

• Demonstration of the importance of partnership work.

Table 22. Results from the workshops with stakeholders


68


69

The Theory of Change depicted in figure 21 summarizes the results from the workshops with

stakeholders. This Theory of Change is broader than the one used for this analysis, as not all the

outcomes were relevant / possible to measure. The reasoning behind stakeholder’s choice of these

outcomes in the workshops justifications for not including them in this SROI analysis are presented

in Tables 23 and 24.

Positive outcomes

identified by

stekholders in

workshops

Reasoning stated by the stakeholders in

workshops Justification for non-inclusion in the SROI analysis

Homeless people

contract less

diseases

As homeless people benefit from the

program’s daily meals and support, they

no longer need to look for food in the

trash and always get medical assistance

in situations of emergency (delivered by

specialized medical teams contacted by

the volunteers). This helps avoiding the

occurrence and aggravation of diseases.

In order to measure this outcome, information on the

evolution of the beneficiaries’ health status and living habits

would be needed from the first contact they have with the

vans. Only then would it be possible to assess the amount

of homeless people that contract fewer diseases thanks to

the program.

This type of case-by-case motorization was not possible to

implement in the current operating model. Nevertheless,

even if these outcomes would be measurable, they were

bound to have little materiality since:

(a) the role played by the Street Intervention teams to

assure medical assistance in case of emergency is

confined to contacting medical teams;

(b) the results from questionnaires answered by the

homeless people show that the reduction in consumption of

food coming from the garbage due to the program’s meals

is not significant, as it applied for only 5% of the

respondents (see Annex A).

Hospitals’ emergency

rooms receive less

homeless people

Homeless people

integrate in Lisbon’s

street support

network

As homeless people create trust

relationships with the program’s

volunteers, they become less suspicious

and begin to trust in other organizations

and search for more help.

Often homeless people can’t distinguish between

volunteers working for different entities, which makes it

hard to confirm the occurrence of the outcome and its

causality connection with the program’s volunteers.

Homeless People are

more included in

society

One of the tasks that the program’s

volunteers incur in the daily support they

provide to homeless people is helping

them to improve their hygiene habits and

update their legal documents. By doing

so, homeless people feel more confident

to interact with other people, and this

leads to a greater social inclusion.

The results from questionnaires answered by the homeless

people show that their habits of hygiene and the update of

their legal documents is not a material outcome from the

program, as only 34% of the respondents shower every

week or have their legal documents up-to-date thanks to

the Street Intervention teams (see Annex A).

Lisbon residents

benefit from an

improved image of

the city The referral of homeless people to the

Open Dialogue Space by the volunteers

leads to their subsequent referral to other

support, which in turn leads to their exit

from the streets (be it temporary or

permanent).

The results from questionnaires answered by Lisbon’s

residents show that the improvement of the city’s image is

not a material change, as 83% of the respondents did not

select it as being an outcome of Comunidade Vida e Paz’s

activity (see Annex A).

Lisbon residents

benefit from a drop in

criminality

The measurement of the outcome would require

knowledge about the criminal records of the homeless

people who leave the streets due to referrals to the Open

Dialogue Space, which is not possible to obtain.

Table 23. Positive outcomes not included in the SROI


70

Negative

Outcome Reasoning Justification for non-inclusion in the SROI analysis

Trash

accumulated in

the Street

Waste from the meals delivered by the

Street Intervention teams is left behind by

the homeless people.

The negative outcome was not relevant as its confirmation

rate extracted from the questionnaires answered by Lisbon

residents was only 7% (see Annex A).

Homeless people

are exposed to

too many

volunteers

Each volunteer participates in a circuit only

twice a month, which means that for 15 days

homeless people are approached by

different people.

The negative outcome was not relevant as its confirmation

rate extracted from the questionnaires was only 28% (see

Annex A).

Table 24. Negative outcomes not included in the SROI


71

Questionnaires

Goals

The application of questionnaires to representative samples the stakeholder groups served to

quantify outcome indicators and assess their attribution and deadweight rates. The questionnaires

also had open questions that allowed for the identification of new outcomes or context factors that

might contribute to the program’s impact. There were thus 5 different questionnaires directed to the

following stakeholder groups:

• Regular volunteers

• Lisbon’s homeless population

• Residents of Lisbon

• Corporate employees participating in the corporate volunteering program

• Contact persons from the companies involved in the corporate volunteering program

Methodology

All questionnaires were done online except from those directed to homeless persons, which were

administered in the streets by the volunteers. Data processing was done by Comunidade Vida e

Paz.

Results

The following table shows the number of answers collected. The next few pages show the

questionnaires and their results.

Stakeholder Group Characterization of respondent universe Universe

Size

Nr. of

Answers

Representation

(% of Universe)

Homeless People Homeless beneficiaries of the program 428 155 37%

Regular Volunteers Volunteers assigned in a regular circuit 503 161 32%

Corporate Employees

Corporate employees that participate in a circuit

through the corporate volunteering program in

2013

504 46 9%

Companies Companies involved in the corporate

volunteering program in 2013 19 5 30%

Residents of Lisbon Residents who know about and are influenced

by the program

Impossible to

define 186 Impossible to define


72


73


74


75


76


77


78


79


80


81


82


83


84


85


86

Value Games

Goals

Individual value games were conducted with stakeholders in order to assess the importance that

the intervention’s outcomes had to them. This method uses stated preferences to value the

outcomes’ impact in one’s wellbeing, as it induces the participants to express their subjective

valuations by comparing the utility they receive from outcomes with the utility they receive from

other goods and services they use and cherish in their day-to-day lives. These “games” were meant

value outcomes experienced by two stakeholder groups:

• Homeless People

• Regular Volunteers

Methodology

Representatives from each typified segment within both stakeholders’ groups were interviewed

individually in order to state their preferences through a value game. The steps taken in each value

game were the following:

(1) Value card definition – Participants should say what relevant goods/services they used in

their daily lives and chose a corresponding value card or drawing an illustration in a blank

card. Among the value cards should be the outcome under valuation (“to volunteer in a

Street Intervention team” for volunteers and “to receive daily support from volunteers” for

homeless people).

(2) Value cards ordering – Participants should place all value cards in the table by order of

importance (they should begin by placing in the bottom the value card depicting the

product/service they would chose first if they had to give up one thing for one year, and

hence forward). The value card depicting the outcome would then be placed between two

other value cards in this priority list (it was important to make sure that there was always at

least one value card more important than the outcome).

(3) Monetization of Value Cards used as threshold values for the outcome – Participants

belonging to the volunteers group should simply estimate how much they spent per year on

the products/services depicted in the value cards immediately above and below the

outcome card. For homeless participants, though, the assigned value was the average

yearly expenses that a Portuguese citizen had in the goods/services depicted in the

threshold value cards.

(4) Estimation of the outcome’s monetary value – The monetary value of the outcome was

calculated as an arithmetic average of the values attributed to the threshold value cards

(i.e. the value cards placed immediately above and below the outcome card).


87

Results

Stakeholder

Group

Estimated

value of

positive

outcome

Game

Nr.

Value Card

placed

below the

outcome

card

Monetization of value card placed

below the outcome card

Value Card

placed

above the

outcome

card

Monetization of value card

placed above the outcome card

Homeless

People

Receive

Support

from

Volunteers

=

790 €

1. Consuming

Alcohol

Average expense that a Portuguese

alcoholic has per year with alcoholic

beverages, according to the NHS

(1 500 €)

Receiving a

daily meal

Average yearly expense with food

and non-alcoholic beverages in

Portugal* (1 015 €)

2. Receiving a

daily meal



Portugal*

(1 015 €)

Having a

Winter coat

Average price of a warm coat

(100 €)

3. Receiving a

daily meal



Portugal*

(1 015 €)

Receiving

regular

changes of

clothes

Average yearly expense with

clothes and shoes in Portugal*

(312 €)

4. Receiving a

daily meal



Portugal*

(1 015 €)

Receiving

regular

changes of

clothes

Average yearly expense with

clothes and shoes in Portugal*

(312 €)

Regular

Volunteers

Volunteer in

the Street

Intervention

Program

=

1400 €

1.

Going on

vacations

with family

Expenses the respondent estimates

to have per year with family

vacations (2 000 €)

Going out to

dinner with

family

Expenses that the respondent

has per year with going out for

dinner with family (6 000 €)

2. Professional

Training


to have per year with professional

training (750 €)

Traveling

Expenses the respondent

estimates to have per year with

travels

(3 000 €)

3.

Having a

mobile

phone


to have per year with mobile

communications (360 €)

Having a car



his/her car (1 560 €)

4. Going to the

Gym


to have per year with the gymnasium

(604 €)

Going on

vacations

with family



family vacations (1 500 €)

5.

Having a

mobile

phone


to have per year with mobile

communications (312 €)

Buying

shoes



shoes (600 €)

Table 25 Resuts from the Value Games


88

ANNEX B – EXTRAPOLATING INPUTS: ASSUMPTIONS.

Due to the unavailability of some data about the activity’s non-accountable costs for the months of

July, August, September and October, an extrapolation was made based on the seasonality of the

activity. Table 26 presents the assumptions behind this extrapolation.

Month Characterization Extrapolation Assumptions

July Since both months coincide with the main annual holiday of

staff, volunteers and corporate employees:

• there is a decrease in meals consumed at the Head

Office

• there is decrease in volunteer work in the head

office and in the circuits

• Assignment of only 75% of the average*

volunteering time for the month of July

• Assignment of only 50% of the average*

volunteering time for the month of August

• Assignment of 100% of the average* consumption

of other inputs for both months August

September These are considered typical months regarding the activity

in the Comunidade’s Head Office and Street Intervention

program

• Assignment of the average* consumption of inputs

October

* standardised monthly average: only takes into account the registered inputs of months that are considered "typical“ - these exclude:

• November and December, as Head Office’s costs increase significantly in these months due to the Christmas Party

• May and June, as there is great intensity of corporate volunteering in these months that does not occur in other months

In table 27 the monthly vale of non-accountable costs of Street Teams, can be seen, and the data

extrapolation results displayed in table 26 are shown in grey.

Cost Type Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Non-accounting costs of the Head Office allocated to Street Intervention program

Meals consumed

at the HO 30,69 28,39 28,89 27,03 29,40 28,39 21,39 14,26 28,24 28,24 27,62 20,63

Donated

Equipment 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 9,43 8,73

Non-technical

Volunteer work 48,90 48,90 48,90 48,90 48,90 53,79 46,89 31,26 65,93 65,93 117,01 108,39

Technical

Volunteer work 12,80 6,04 15,10 15,10 13,59 15,10 13,30 8,86 20,85 20,85 39,61 7,55

Services

rendered for free 186,64 160,97 197,21 206,72 233,90 135,90 147,94 98,63 218,14 218,14 234,72 149,49

Non-accounting costs specific to the Street Intervention program

Distributed Meals 18.941,62 18.330,60 18.941,62 18.330,60 18.941,62 18.330,60 18.941,62 18.941,62 18.330,60 18.941,62 18.330,60 18.941,62

Non-technical

Volunteer work 11.989,62 12.255,63 12.205,51 11.731,32 14.287,31 20.474,88 9.869,00 9.869,00 10.655,00 10.655,00 13.266,84 13.261,83

Total Value of

Inputs 31.210,27 30.830,53 31.437,23 30.359,67 33.554,72 39.038,66 29.041,55 28.964,58 29.321,11 29.932,13 32.025,82 32.498,24

Table 26. Assumptions behind input extrapolation

Table 27. The program’s monthly non-accounting costs distributed by month


89

Table 28 shows the annual value of the program’s accountable and non-accountable inputs, which

refer both to the accountability of the fiscal year of 2013 and to additional data collected by one of

the four existing circuits in the program during the analysis period.

Cost Type Predicted

Annual Value

Accounting costs

Acquisition of goods and

services 14.365,01 €

External Services Charges 31.791,49 €

Employees’ salaries and

benefits 39.448,82 €

Depreciation and

Amortization 350,83 €

Other expenses and losses 1.195,59 €

Financial expenses and

losses 0,15 €

Non-accounting costs of the Head Office

allocated to Street Intervention program

Meals consumed at the

Head Office 313,17 €

Donated Equipment 25,23 €

Non-technical Volunteer

work 733,70 €

Technical Volunteer work 188,75 €

Services rendered for free 2.188,39 €

Non-accounting costs specific to the Street

Intervention program

Distributed Meals 224.244,34 €

Non-technical Volunteer

work 150.520,94 €

TOTAL 465.366,40 €

Table 28. Street Teams Total Annual Inputs

Data collected from the accountability of the fiscal

year of 2013, which includes part if the inputs

consumed in the Comunidade’s Head Office,

according to the cost allocation rate defined by the

organization’s accounting system to allocate fixed

cross-cutting costs among its several programs.

Extrapolated data from the information gathered in

the Head Office during the analysis period. The total

Head Office Unaccountable Cost allocation was

made using the allocation rate used by the

organization.

Extrapolated data from the information gathered in

the Street Teams B Route, during the analysis

period.


90

ANNEX C – MONETISING NON-ACCOUNTING INPUTS: ESTIMATES

Inputs monetisation assumptions

The calculation of the program’s SROI ratio required the monetization of donated resources that

were not part of Comunidade Vida e Paz’s regular accounting system. These resources were then

valued by the expenses that the organization would incur if it had to acquire them in the market.

Table 29 shows estimations for the value of each item of the program’s non-accounting costs, as

well as those consumed by the Head Office of Comunidade Vida e Paz.

Cost

Allocation

Centre

Cost

Type Description Monetization Reasoning

Monetary

Value

Head Office

Meals

consumed at

the HO

Meals consumed by the employees and

volunteers that work in the Head Office

performing tasks that are not specific to any

program. These meals are mostly composed

of donated food products.

Each meal was valued according to

the lunch subsidy stated at the

Portuguese Government’s collective

wage agreement for civil servants.

2,38 € / meal

Donated

Equipment

Furniture and Equipments donated to the

Head Office (and not to any specific

program).

Estimation of the expenses that

would be incurred by Comunidade

Vida e Paz to acquire equivalent

goods.

Varies by item

Non-technical

Volunteer work

Individual or corporate volunteer work which

does not involve technical work. National minimum wage. 3,86 € / hour

Technical

Volunteer work


involves technical work.

Average estimated cost of the

various services rendered by

technical volunteers (i.e. consulting,

auditing, maintenance, IT,

construction, law practice).

50 € / hour

Services

rendered for

free

Pro-bono services rendered by companies to

the organization as a whole (and not to any

specific program).

Average estimated cost of the

various pro-bono services that are

usually rendered (i.e. consulting,

auditing, maintenance, IT,

construction and law practice).

50 € / hour

Street Teams

Distributed

Meals

Meals distributed daily, composed of two

sandwiches, one pastry, juice and one glass

of milk.

Estimated production cost of the

meal, based on the current

wholesale price of its components.

1,37/ meal

Non-technical

Volunteer work


does not involve technical work.

Value of the national minimum

wage. 3,86/ hour

Table 29. Monetisation of the program’s non-accounting inputs


91

ANNEX D – MONETISING OUTCOMES: FINANCIAL PROXYS

Figure 23 contains a description of the reasoning behind the calculation of the financial proxies

used to monetize the program’s positive outcomes.

Figure 23. Definition of financial proxies for positive outcome monetisation

The reduction of hunger induced by each meal given to homeless people (composed of two sandwiches, a pastry and

juice) was monetized according to its retail price, which is estimated to be about € 2.40. As such, it is assumed that the

value to homeless people of receiving a daily meal all year round is the same as the average price consumers are willing

to pay for 365 units of that same meal.

The decrease in loneliness resulting from the daily contact between the program’s volunteers and homeless people

was monetized according to the results of value games conducted individually with 4 homeless people. This stated

preferences method was considered the most adequate for this outcome due to its personal and subjective nature .Also,

there aren’t any services in the market that cause an impact in one’s wellbeing that is equivalent to the one resulting

from providing support and friendship to people in such extreme social exclusion.

Daily delivery

of meals

Homeless

people suffer

less from

hunger

Annual value of the

meals distributed by

the Comunidade:

€ 880

Assessment Method(s):

Market Prices

Calculation:

Retail price of one meal: € 2,4

Nr. of meals received : 365

2,4 x 365 = € 880

Daily support

and follow-up

of homeless

people

Homeless

people feel

less lonely

Annual value of

receiving volunteer

support:

€ 790


Distribution of Expenses in Portugal

Value Games

Calculation:

Mathematical average of value games

results : € 790


92

Homeless

people are

referred to

other support

Table 23. Definition of financial proxies for positive outcome monetisation (continued)

Average price to pay

for the "possibility of

a life-change" in

Portugal:

€ 872


Market Prices

Calculation:

referrals to Rehabilitation programs: 25%

referrals to reception centres: 24%

referrals to other support programs: 48%

Rehabilitation Price = € 2 500

Hostel stay price = € 540

Medical consultation price = € 50

(25%x2500)+(24%x540)+(48%x 50€)= 872

The possibility offered to homeless people of receiving adequate was monetized according to the market price of equivalent

services in the market. It is then assumed that, for homeless people, the importance of getting support to overcome the

problems that keep them on the streets is equivalent to the importance, in monetary terms, that a consumer is willing to pay

to solve these problems through services offered in the market. Therefore, the outcome’s monetary value results from a

weighted average price of such services, according to the percentage of people referred to each type of support.

Participation

of >500

regular

volunteers

Regular

volunteers are

more humane

and feel more

fulfilled

Valuation of the

satisfaction about

life, after Street

Team regular

participation:

€ 1 200


Market Prices

Calculation:

Therapy session = € 50

Annual participations in rounds = 24

24x50=1200

The humanization and sense of fulfilment acquired by regular volunteers through their participation in the circuits was

monetized according to the price of a therapy session, since several volunteers mentioned in the workshop that each round

was "like a therapy“ that gave them new perspectives on their problems. The resulting value (€1200) was confirmed by

value games made with 6 volunteers, which resulted in a similar value (€1400). However, the market prices method was

chosen as it is more conservative .

New cases

reported to the

Open Dialogue

Space


93


This section presents the steps taken in the process of calculating which resources are consumed

in the in the program’s three main macro-activities: storage/distribution of meals, regular

volunteering work and corporate volunteering work.

1 . Division of inputs between Meals and Volunteer work

Participation

of >500

corporate

volunteers

Corporate

employees are

more humane

and feel more

fulfilled

Table 23. Definition of financial proxies for positive outcome monetisation (continued)

Valuation of the

satisfaction about

life, after Street

Team participation:

€ 50


Market Prices

Calculation:

Therapy session = € 50

The humanization and sense of fulfilment acquired by corporate employees through their participation in the program’s

corporate volunteering was monetized according to the price of a therapy, for the same reason exposed previously in the

case of the regular volunteers.

The increase motivation of the employees from companies that participate in the program’s corporate volunteering was

monetized through the price of a corporate team building event. This method took into consideration answers from the

questionnaires answered by contact persons of the participating companies, who reported “destruction of relationship

barriers between work colleagues”.

Participation of >500

corporate volunteers

Companies have more motivated employees

Average price of a Team Building

event(4h):

€ 580


Market Prices

Calculation:

Team building service price = € 580


94


Cost Type Meals

(% of Inputs)

Volunteer Work

(% of Inputs)

Accounting costs

Acquisitions 80% 20%

External Services Charges 55% 45%

Employees’ salaries and benefits 5% 95%

Depreciation and Amortization 50% 50%

Other expenses and losses 50% 50%

Financial expenses and losses 50% 50%

Non-accounting costs of the Head Office allocated to Street

Intervention program

Meals consumed at the Head

Office 50% 50%

Donated Equipment 50% 50%

Non-technical Volunteer work 50% 50%

Technical Volunteer work 50% 50%

Services rendered for free 50% 50%

Non-accounting costs specific to the Street Intervention

program

Distributed Meals 100% 0%

Non-Technical Volunteer work 0% 100%

TOTAL 60% 40%

2. Division of inputs between Regular and Corporate volunteer work

Regular Volunteering

(% of inputs allocated to volunteering)

Corporate Volunteering

(% of inputs allocated to volunteering)

95% 5%

The expenses with acquisitions include mainly food products and distribution services required to produce and store the meals. It also includes expenses with transportation (i.e. van maintenance, fuel, etc.), which were allocated equally between Meals and Volunteer Work.

Expenses with external services refer to the wage of the Coordinator of Volunteers, and so their allocation between meals and volunteer work corresponds to the amount of time spent by this person in each of them.

Allocation of costs with personnel took into account the amount of time spent by paid employees in coordinating volunteering activities and managing the food products received.

The remaining accounting costs and the non-accounting costs of the Head Office refer to running expenses that do not depend on variations in the number of meals or the intensity of volunteering work. Therefore, these expenses were allocated equally between both macro-activities.

Allocation of volunteering inputs between regular and corporate volunteering reflects the percentage of hours given by each of these two types of volunteers.

everis Portugal Atrium Saldanha Praça Duque de Saldanha, 1 - 10º E/F 1050 - 094 Lisboa Tel.: 21 330 10 20 Fax: 21 330 10 21

Copyright © 2015, everis. All rights reserved

Consulting, IT & Outsourcing Professional Services

everis.com www.facebook.com/portugal.everis

Forecast SROI of the Street Intervention Program_Report 2015

Documents

Transcript of Forecast SROI of the Street Intervention Program_Report 2015