SROI to IMN Case Study 6: The 11th Power of Love Platform by Taishin Charity Foundation

Taiwan is home to over ten thousand non-profit organizations, which receive over 40 billion dollars worth of donations annually. However, over 80% of these donations go towards larger-sized non-profit organizations, leaving small and medium-sized non-profit organizations poorly funded. To support small and medium-sized charitable organizations, Taishin Financial Holdings launched Taiwan’s first large-scale online charity event, the Power of Love Platform (PLP). It encourages people to review as many non-profit organizations’ proposals as possible and cast ten votes for the ten proposals they like best.

Project description

Taishin Financial Holdings invited charitable organizations to submit project proposals to the Power of Love Platform website. The public then votes online for the organizations they believe contribute the most significant positive impact, and in the end, funds are distributed based on the allocation of votes. In so doing, Taishin Financial Holdings endeavors to expand the platform’s visibility, enhance the public’s participation and increase the visibility of non-profit organizations’ proposals.

Analysis

The original assessment report applies the Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis approach which is analyzed using the Impact Management Norms (IMN) framework.

This conversion report discusses the six outcomes experienced by the four types of stakeholders involved in the 11th Power of Love Platform – Non-profit Organizations/Social Enterprises, Staff in Non-profit Organizations/Social Enterprises, Taishin volunteers, and Donors in Taiwan. As such, the outcomes are analyzed based on the Impact Management Norms framework’s WHAT dimension, with five categories of data presented in Table 1. This includes the Outcome Level in Period, Outcome Indicator, Outcome Threshold, the Importance of the Outcome to Stakeholders, and the Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) relevant to the Platform.

The Outcome Level in Period and Outcome Threshold are not provided in the original report. Meanwhile, the Importance of Outcome to Stakeholders is highest for Improved Service Quality, followed by Increased Access to Resources and Increased Coherence to their Affiliations. 

Table 1 lists details of the seven types of Outcome Indicators associated with the 11th Power of Love Platform, including objective and subjective indicators. These correspond to the second step of analyzing the Social Return on Investment (SROI) approach, Mapping Outcomes, as mentioned in the original report. Moreover, SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities is found to be relevant to the Platform.

The WHO dimension, the second dimension of the IMN framework, describes those who have been, and will be, impacted by the intervention activity. The four data categories include stakeholder, geographical boundary, outcome level at baseline, and stakeholder characteristics. Table 2 represents the data identified for this dimension as it pertains to Non-Profit Organizations/Social Enterprises (NPOs/SEs). 
The review revealed that the non-profit organizations/social enterprises in this group were not restricted geographically, with equal representation among the 170 funded and 132 non-funded organizations. Regarding the most pertinent category of Outcome Level at Baseline, unfortunately, the original report did not offer such information. Nevertheless, it did provide information on some of the key dimensions, namely, well-defined outcomes which included increased main beneficiaries/clients, improved service quality, increased access to resources; and increased coherence to their affiliations. Finally, these stakeholders can be classified into two groups, depending on their status of being funded or non-funded.

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, which is Evidencing outcomes and giving them value. Chapter 3 of the original report provides these data, and relevant figures can be found in Table 3. When up to 87.5% of stakeholders experienced the outcome of Increased access to resources, considering the depth of outcomes experienced, the Increased main beneficiaries/clients become the relatively significant outcome.

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. These data correspond to the fourth step in analyzing using the SROI approach: Establishing impact, which can be found in Chapter 3 of the original report. The category of deadweight represents the proportion of change that can be attributed to the intervention and is calculated by subtracting the baseline from the reported outcome. Attribution refers to the proportion of change that can be attributed to something other than the intervention, such as external factors. Displacement captures the impact arising from the intervention activities pre-empting or displacing resources that would otherwise be used for development activities. Lastly, dropoff indicates the proportion of project participants that have not seen any benefit from the intervention activities. 

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. In the Chapter 5 of the original report, the analyst highlighted limitations such as his inability to engage directly with all stakeholders and the probability that stakeholders may not clearly state the changes they have experienced. These limitations are classified into type: Stakeholder Participation Risk, and level: low and were addressed through the development of an appropriate methodology to guarantee that all stakeholders were included in the project and that any potential changes were accurately reported. The estimated risk level was therefore classified as low. The information provided in Table 4 thus reflects the CONTRIBUTION and RISK features of the IMN framework and can be used to assess the objectives of the intervention activities.

Overall, the original report provides a relatively complete set of data needed to measure impact. Analysts split the Value Map into several parts and explained each in detail in corresponding chapters. More importantly, it discusses the eighth principle incorporated by Social Value international since 2021, “Be Responsive.” This inclusion differentiates it from previous reports, pointing out a new direction for subsequent reports or research.