Abstract
This chapter discusses the methodological aspects of dealing with the data that serve to verify the impact models. First, we outline the basic possibilities and limits of non-experimental designs, each of which has consequences on the time horizon, the costs and the skills needed to measure impacts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
On RCTs, in general, see Torgerson and Torgerson (2008). On impact measurement in development cooperation, see, for example, BMZ (2008); primarily on RCTs in development economics, Banerjee and Duflo (2011); on health economics, Miyamoto and Eraker (1985); and for environmental economics, Möller and Schaltegger (2005).
- 2.
This was prominently described by Salamon (1995), who listed particularity as one of the four elementary “failures” of non-profit organisations. Accordingly, it is a particular feature of social purpose activity (especially, in comparison with state activity, most of which is legally entitled or mandated to be oriented towards an entire population) that, because of limited resources and the autonomy/selectiveness of resource providers (benefactors, donors, volunteers, etc.), they are always focused on certain problems or social groups, rather than exerting a comprehensive influence. Excepted from these are, of course, programmes and projects that perform services in the framework of standard benefits under social law (like social security) under the authority of corresponding organisations.
- 3.
One example of this is studies on the provision of care by private persons which recruit their respondents from support groups or through the media. The risk here is that persons who participate in the survey are likely to be those who are intensively involved in the provision of care, and who correspondingly report especially heavy strains (cf. Pinquart and Sörensen 2003).
- 4.
For telephone and online surveys, the length of the questionnaire is a key criterion for data quality. The development of the German volunteer survey performed every five years has always adhered to the “omnibus principle”, by which a certain number of questions should never be exceeded. Whenever a new question was to “come on board”, another had to leave and “give up its seat”.
- 5.
In the international comparison, this is apparently true above all in societies like the Scandinavian ones, which have relatively few (deep-seated) social conflicts and are characterised by sociopolitical systems that, by providing universal access to services, largely prevent citizens from permanently accusing their fellow citizens of “taking advantage” of the social systems, creating a generally high level of trust instead (cf. Rothstein and Stolle 2003; Van Oorschot et al. 2005).
- 6.
- 7.
For an example of the World Values Survey, see WVS (n.d.).
- 8.
Cf. on this above all the work of Specialisterne, the “Specialist People Foundation”, founded by the social entrepreneur Thorkil Sonne (see Specialisterne, n.d.).
References
AWN. (2011). SROI-Info (Kurzfassung). Präsentation der 1. Studie des SROI für Werkstätten für Menschen mit Behinderungen (Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Werkstätten am Niederrhein).
Banerjee, A. V., & Duflo, E. (2011). Poor economics. A radical rethinking of the way to fight global poverty. New York: PublicAffairs.
BMZ. (2008). Wirkungsevaluierungen. Zum Stand der internationalen Diskussion und dessen Relevanz für die Evaluierung der deutschen Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (BMZ Evaluation Division, Evaluation Working Papers). Bonn and Berlin: Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung.
Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of what? On welfare, goods, and capabilities. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 9–29). Oxford: Clarendon.
Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.
Kehl, K. (2016). Sozialinvestive Pflegepolitik in Deutschland. Familiäre und zivilgesellschaftliche Potenziale im Abseits wohlfahrtsstaatlichen Handelns. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Kehl, K., & Then, V. (2013). Community and civil society returns of multi-generation cohousing in Germany. Journal of Civil Society, 9(1), 41–57.
Krlev, G., Münscher, R., & Mülbert, K. (2013). Social return on investment (SROI). State-of-the-art and perspectives. A meta-analysis of practice in social return on investment (SROI) studies published 2002–2012. Heidelberg: Centre for Social Investment, Heidelberg University.
Layard, R. (2005). Happiness. Lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin Press.
Leifeld, P. (2016). Policy debates as dynamic networks: German pension politics and privatization discourse. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.
Miyamoto, J., & Eraker, S. (1985). Parameter estimates for a QALY utility model. Medical Decision Making, 5(2), 73–83.
Möller, A., & Schaltegger, S. (2005). The sustainability balanced scorecard as a framework for eco-efficiency analysis. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 9(4), 73–83.
Netzwerk Soziales neu gestalten. (2009). Soziale Wirkung und ‘Social Return’. Eine sozioökonomische Mehrwertanalyse gemeinschaftlicher Wohnprojekte, Zukunft Quartier, Lebensräume zum Älterwerden (Vol. 3). Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2003). Associations of stressors and uplifts of caregiving with caregiver burden and depressive mood. A meta-analysis. The Journals of Gerontology, 58B(2), 112–128.
Robeyns, I. (2007). The capability approach. A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–117.
Rothstein, B., & Stolle, D. (2003). Social capital, impartiality and the welfare state. An institutional approach. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital. Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp. 191–210). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service. Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schober, C., More-Hollerweger, E., & Rauscher, O. (2012). SROI-Analyse für die Feuerwehren in Oberösterreich. Project Report. Vienna: Competence Center for Nonprofit Organisations and Social Entrepreneurship, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
Sen, A. K. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Specialisterne. (n.d.). Specialisterne foundation. http://specialisternefoundation.com. Accessed September 07, 2017.
Then, V., Münscher, R., Callegari, B., Stahlschmidt, S., Wedemeyer, L., Bungard, P., et al. (2012). Assessing the impact of the mechatronics programme at the University of Agder. A social return on investment report to the competence development fund of Southern Norway. Project Report. Heidelberg: Centre for Social Investment, Heidelberg University.
Then, V., Münscher, R., Stahlschmidt, S., & Knust, R. (2014). Studie zu den Effekten betrieblicher Kinderbetreuung. Ein CSI Bericht unter Verwendung des Social Return on Investment. Report. Heidelberg: Centre for Social Investment, Heidelberg University.
Thümler, E., & Scheuerle, T. (2013). International approaches to measuring well-being. An empirical and theoretical overview. Report. Heidelberg: Centre for Social Investment, Heidelberg University.
Torgerson, D. J., & Torgerson, C. J. (2008). Designing randomized trials in health, education and the social sciences. An introduction. Basingstoke, England and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Oorschot, W., Arts, W., & Halman, L. (2005). Welfare state effects on social capital and informal solidarity in the European Union. Evidence from the 1999/2000 European values study. Policy and Politics, 33(1), 35–56.
Veenhoven, R. (2009). Well-being in nations and well-being of nations. Social Indicators Research, 91(1), 5–21.
WVS. (n.d.). World values survey. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org. Accessed September 07, 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Then, V., Schober, C., Rauscher, O., Kehl, K. (2017). Can the Presumed Impacts Be Proven? Analysis from a Quantitative Point of View. In: Social Return on Investment Analysis. Palgrave Studies in Impact Finance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71401-1_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71401-1_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71400-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71401-1
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)