SROI to IMN Case Study 3: Recycling Lives Charity and Social Enterprise

Vulnerable groups exist, no matter how “advanced” the economies are. They are usually minorities that require care, and the extent to which they access adequate support is essential to the stability of society as a whole. Recycling Lives Charity and Social Enterprise, operating primarily in northwest England, provides assistance to rehabilitated people, people experiencing homelessness, and families suffering from food shortages. This report assesses the impact of the initiatives it launched in 2020.

British society is facing social problems such as high reoffending rates, homelessness, and food waste, which seem to have correlations. For example, data reveal that nearly two-thirds of rehabilitated return to prison quickly. Finding jobs is the challenge the rehabilitated mostly encounter, making it difficult to maintain a basic life. In the situation above, the rehabilitated are prone to living on the streets and suffering from hunger, which increases the likelihood that the rehabilitated will commit crimes again.

Project description

Recycling Lives Charity & Social Enterprise, based in Preston, delivers three specific programs. First, in the offender rehabilitation program, Recycling Lives Charity & Social Enterprise helped ex-offenders earn an enhanced wage, set aside savings, develop transferable work skills and improve their life skills through workshops. The residential program supports people experiencing homelessness by offering personalized support, access to training and work placements, and safe, stable accommodation. Finally, aiming to tackle problems like food poverty and food waste, the food redistribution program seeks to take surplus stock from food retailers and redistribute this to needy people. To assess the impact of the programs above on stakeholders, Recycling Lives Charity & Social Enterprise invited a certified practitioner to conduct a professional evaluation for the entire year of 2020.

Analysis

The original assessment report applying the social return on investment (SROI) analysis approach is turned into a five-dimension table below, in alignment with the impact measurement and management (IMM) framework set forth by the Impact Frontier.

Stakeholders involved in the three Recycling Lives Charity & Social Enterprise programs included rehabilitated people, people experiencing homelessness and families suffering from food shortage (grouped into the primary beneficiary), staff and volunteers of the organization, and external Stakeholders. The number of outcomes derived from the three Recycling Lives Charity & Social Enterprise programs reached 17, comprising six for the primary beneficiary, one for staff and volunteers, and ten for external stakeholders. Among outcomes, increased isolation was the one that was negative and unintended. The three most impactful outcomes regarding impact value were increased self-confidence, improved mental health, and improved sense of personal agency. In this conversion report, only one group of stakeholders, Primary Beneficiary, receives discussion (see Table 1) because they experienced changes of the highest values.

The WHAT dimension, the first dimension of the IMN framework, explains the outcomes resulting from intervention activities and involves five categories of data: outcome level in period, outcome indicator, outcome threshold, the importance of the outcome to stakeholders, and SDG. These data correspond to the second step in analyzing using the SROI approach, which is mapping outcomes and can be found in the section titled ‘valuing the outcomes’ (pages 18-21). However, the content of this section needs to provide information about Outcome Level in Period, Outcome Indicator, and Outcome Threshold. As for the Importance of Outcome to Stakeholders, the outcome of Increased Self-confidence is of the highest value, followed by Improved Mental Health and Improved Sense of Control over Their Own Lives. Finally, although not specified in the original report, in terms of the content, Recycling Lives Charity & Social Enterprise intervention activities correspond to No Poverty (SDG 1). (See Table 1)

The WHO dimension, the second dimension of the IMN framework, describes those who are affected by intervention activities and includes four data categories: stakeholder, geographic boundary, outcome level at baseline, and stakeholder characteristics. In terms of content, these data correspond to the first step in analyzing using the SROI approach, which is establishing scope and identifying stakeholders. Chapter 4 of the original report may provide these data, which lists the stakeholders involved in the discussion and explains why some stakeholders were excluded. As shown in Table 2, the stakeholders impacted by the intervention activities include, local farmers, market facilitators, buyers, and Flotim Area Development Program (ADP) staff. Specifically, the interventions engaged 1500 local farmers and 40 market facilitators. However, Due to the lack of information on stakeholder characteristics, these stakeholders cannot be further subdivided into multiple subgroups. Additionally, data pertaining to the outcome level at baseline is not provided in this chapter, hence the “n/a” notation in Table 2 for these fields.

The HOW MUCH dimension, the third dimension of the IMN framework, describes the importance of outcomes derived from intervention activities and involves three data categories: scale, depth, and duration. In terms of content, these data correspond to the third step in analyzing using the SROI approach: evidencing outcomes and giving them value. As the original report did not provide the available information, requesting the Value Map from the original report’s author is necessary. The Value Map delivers the required data for two categories, scale and duration, but leaves the data needed for one category, Depth, absent. (See Table 3)

The CONTRIBUTION dimension, the fourth dimension of the IMN framework, clarifies whether and to which extent intervention activities lead to outcomes, involving four data categories: deadweight, attribution, displacement, and dropoff. In terms of content, these data correspond to the fourth step in analyzing using the SROI approach: Establishing impact. Although relevant discussions can be found in the section titled ‘Impact & Causality’ (pages 22-23), the data for each item can only be obtained from the Value Map provided by the original report’s author. The numbers for each item are generally reasonable. (See Table 4)

The RISK dimension, the final dimension of the IMN framework, explains possible risks of intervention activities involving two data categories: type and level. In the IMN framework, type is categorized into nine categories, while level is classified into three types: high, medium, and low. None of the six stages of SROI directly address differentiating risk types and levels. The section titled ‘Scope & Limitations’ (page 10) contains discussions about Risk. Specifically, regarding the content discussed, the risks associated with the activities initiated by Recycling Lives Charity and Social Enterprise fall under the category of Evidence risk and are rated as high. (See Table 4)

The case study, “SROI to IMN Case Study 3: Recycling Lives Charity and Social Enterprise,” conducted an impact analysis of a series of initiatives aimed at assisting rehabilitated people, people experiencing homelessness, and families suffering from food shortages in northwest England in 2020. This conversion report reveals that the original report was of good quality and mostly met the requirements of the current SROI framework. However, several flaws can still be found. One of them is that the original report does not include the value map, although the original report’s author was willing to share it. Given the importance of the value map for impact measurement, Social Value International (SVI), which is in charge of certification, may have to think about further institutionalizing the presence of analysis reports applying the SROI approach.