What's In It for the Volunteers?

This article reports on a social return on investment (SROI) analysis of volunteers of the Good Food Market program, a food access initiative run by FoodShare Toronto, one of Canada's largest food‐justice organizations. Unlike conventional SROI research, which typically focuses on the entire ecology of an organization or program, this article focuses solely on isolating the return volunteers receive on their investment of time, skills, energy, and the like—an SROI of volunteering. The article reviews the challenges of adapting the SROI methodology to the context of volunteer benefits and finds that ultimately SROI is a useful tool for articulating the value of volunteering.     

Challenges and boundaries in implementing social return on investment: An inquiry into its situational appropriateness

Nonprofit organizations (NPOs) and social enterprises are increasingly under pressure to justify their use of resources and report their impact on society. Frameworks that monetize social value such as social return on investment (SROI) have emerged as a response. The existing literature highlights many benefits and technical challenges of SROI, but largely ignores strategic and organizational learning aspects. This paper explores the use of SROI in an NPO conducting cultural heritage preservation. By analyzing the challenges managers face in agreeing on a reliable (“correct”) computation of SROI and in assessing the validity and relevance (“appropriateness”) of SROI, we seek to understand the challenges and boundaries of SROI. Challenges with a reliable computation of SROI are identifying stakeholders, the choice of proxies, the time horizons, and deadweight factors. Challenges with an appropriate SROI calculation are comparability, subjectivity, legitimacy, and resource utility. We argue that SROI calculations might not be reliable or appropriate in organizations with fuzzy purposes, broad value creation goals, broad target groups, very individual or subjective proxies, strongly lagged outcomes, complex or unobservable causality, and with lack of legitimacy among stakeholders. Organizations should not trustingly adopt SROI without being aware of these limitations.     

The leap from ROI to SROI: Farther than expected?

Social return on investment (SROI) is a popular method for evaluating the impact that organizations have on society and the environment. It has its roots in finance, where return on investment (ROI) is used to evaluate investments. Over the past ten years, SROI has made the leap from a tool for building private wealth to one that advances the public good. Has it landed us in a better place? To answer the question, I describe the general approach to financial analysis, how it is applied to financial decisions, and how it has been adapted to evaluate impact. I then consider the strengths and weaknesses of SROI, and suggest how, by pushing beyond the constraints of financial analysis, it can give stakeholders voice and provide evidence of success from diverse perspectives. Along the way, I propose a conceptual model for value, a foundational concept in SROI that has been criticized by some as underdeveloped, and I include a technical appendix that identifies potential sources of statistical bias in SROI estimates. I conclude by acknowledging our growing need to incorporate efficiency as one of multiple success criteria and the role that SROI—properly implemented—can play.     

Turning Social Return on Investment on Its Head

This article undertakes a critique of social return on investment (SROI), combining the existing research literature with an analysis of six case studies of supported social enterprises employing people with disabilities and other challenges that affect their access to the conventional labor market. The critique of SROI focuses on its positivist roots and its emphasis on one number, the SROI ratio. It also discusses the technical challenges in producing that number, including concerns about its reliability. The article presents the stakeholder impact statement, an approach that is rooted in interpretivism and attempts to understand the impact of enterprises through the eyes of multiple stakeholders. Unlike SROI, which is a supplement to conventional accounting statements, the stakeholder impact statement integrates financial and social impact data, thereby placing them on the same level of importance.     

Social Return on Investment for Good Foot Delivery

This article provides reflections on a social return on investment (SROI) research process with Good Foot Delivery, a work integration social enterprise in Toronto, Canada, engaged in package delivery and employing people with developmental challenges. The article has three aims: (1) to assess Good Foot's key business inputs, activities, and outputs, and the social impact that these have had on its key stakeholders for the 2013 calendar year; (2) to critically reflect on how the research team arrived at the SROI’s inputs, outputs, outcomes, proxies, and other findings; and (3) to discuss some of the strengths and challenges of the SROI process in practice.     

A Social Work Perspective on Using Social Return on Investment (SROI) in Humanistic Social Care

Service administrators and social workers are increasingly adopting business terminology in practice, including such terms as “social impact”, “social capital”, “social investing”, “social accounting”, “social benefits”, and “social return on investment” (SROI). These concepts, especially SROI, must be examined for inconsistency with social work values. Clients must not be stigmatised, and their voices must be heard when this controversial measurement tool is used. A prudent mentality must accompany the application of business ideas to humanistic social care.     

Legitimation dynamics: How SROI could mobilize resources for new constituencies

The following critical essay on the social return on investment (SROI) methodology is broken into two parts. In the first section, focusing on the categorization dynamics of the SROI, I review a set of methodological and ethical tensions surrounding the SROI, using examples from my own work and other published works using SROI. These tensions include the fact that the project requires standardization to achieve comparability while concurrently offering a flexibility in constructing a narrative of impact that is attractive to users. In the second section, focusing on the legitimation dynamics, I define a narrow scope for where, despite the aforementioned pitfalls, that the SROI can be quite effective in building a rhetorical argument for directing material resources. The essay argues that despite ongoing methodological challenges, the investor lens and market logic undergirding the metric provide a powerful frame for persuasion that can be used to construct worthiness and value creation for constituents not already constructed as such.     

Social Return on Investment of an Innovative Employment Option for Persons with Developmental Disabilities

Common Ground Co‐operative (CGC) provides training, administrative, and job coach support to five social enterprises for which persons with developmental disabilities are the non‐share‐capital partners. This study examines the use of social return on investment (SROI) as a means of determining the value of program impacts related to quality‐of‐life changes for enterprise partners and their families. The process of conducting this SROI analysis is described and analyzed in terms of its utility in employment services for persons with developmental disabilities.     

Social Return on Investment Analysis

This article uses a social return on investment (SROI) methodology to analyze the social impact of a social enterprise offering a job and skills training program to an unemployed, largely female population. The social enterprise is based in Toronto (Canada) and run by a nonprofit agency dedicated to the advancement and empowerment of women, primarily immigrants, through access to employment. We focus our analysis on a job and skills training program that provides clients with the skills and tools that they need to successfully seek employment in their efforts to (re‐)enter the Canadian labor market. Our goal is to determine the tangible and intangible program outcomes by applying and testing the SROI methodology.     

Latino Faces,Corporate Ties: Latino Advocacy Organizations and Their Board Membership

Although they have increased exponentially since the 1960s, social scientists know little about ethnic advocacy organizations. These nonprofits are important bridges between underresourced communities and mainstream funding organizations and their directors are established ethnic leaders. Sociologists study interlocking directorates—or shared board membership—to understand how organizations fit together within broader social networks. Network concepts, particularly the theory of institutional isomorphism, suggest that organizations are likely to be similar to the extent they are connected and operate within a common organizational field. We apply this logic to Latino advocacy organizations to examine the underlying source of cohesion across this ethnic field. We ask whether the organizations are tied by interlocking directorates of ethnic elites who sit on their boards of directors or if board members' common affiliation with other elite institutions creates the structural conditions that facilitate potential ideological or behavioral similarity. A social network analysis of five prominent Latino advocacy organizations reveals support for both hypotheses: Latino board members are both embedded in ethnic‐based networks and entrenched within elite organizational webs. This suggests that ethnic elites who sit on the boards of Latino advocacy organizations are also corporate elites, selected for the social capital they bring to these nonprofits.     

Institutional Pressures and Organizational Capacity: The Case of Outcome Measurement1

A central claim of new institutional theory is that organizations in a field come to exhibit shared characteristics over time. Recent literature emphasizes variation across field members, but has yet to concur on why differences occur. This study tests institutional explanations for the uneven implementation of one organizational practice—outcome measurement, an evaluative technique used to assess the impact of an organization’s programs. We analyze data from a new survey investigating the practices of nonprofit organizations (N = 379) and argue for the inclusion of the concept of organizational capacity to account for the uneven implementation of outcome measurement. As predicted by new institutional theory, organizations are more likely to adopt outcome measurement if key actors promulgate its use. However, the implementation of outcome measurement is best explained by the addition of the concept of organizational capacity alongside variables drawn from new institutionalism. Nonprofits with adequate organizational capacity, operationalized—following Weber’s concept of bureaucracy—as the presence of written rules and members with specialized knowledge, are better able to respond to isomorphic pressures to implement a new organizational practice. Our findings expand scholarship that examines the intersection of institutional dynamics and organizational traits in accounting for patterns of implementation of practices across an organizational field.     

Social return on investment—Development and convergence

Social return on investment (SROI) is a relatively new approach to assessing the value created by human activity. This paper explores the development of SROI since its creation in 1996 and concludes by outlining areas for future development. SROI is compared with mainstream global approaches to generating standardized information that informs resource allocation decisions, financial accounting in general, sustainability accounting in the private sector and cost benefit analysis in the public sector.     

Pathways to sector selection: A conceptual framework for social enterprises

As hybrid organizations with financial and social objectives, social enterprises must balance competing logics for governance, stakeholders, and outcomes when considering organizational design and structure. The existing legal landscape for organizations exacerbates this dilemma by forcing social enterprises to incorporate as either a nonprofit or for‐profit organization. This research examines the entity formation process for social enterprises by presenting sector choice as an interaction among four factors: equity financing, organizational lineage, human capital, and funding environment. Using a qualitative comparative case analysis, this research demonstrates that contingent factors drive sector choice when legal incentives and institutional pressures are unclear. For those choosing nonprofit forms, the status of the parent organization—the organizational lineage—is determinative. For those operating in the for‐profit context, human capital is predictive. The resulting conceptual framework contributes to existing organizational theory on hybrid organizations by presenting the sector selection process as independent of the motives or legal incentives typically associated with sector choice. This research concludes with a discussion on the advantages of delaying the formal sector declaration process.     

Data culture as a change agent for organizations serving families and children experiencing homelessness

Over the past decade there have been considerable developments in the use of data in the field of child and family homelessness. The development of high-quality data collection processes—including Housing Management Information Systems (HMIS), community point-in-time counts, and school district data and evaluation infrastructure—has given nonprofit and social sector leaders unprecedented access to client-level data. However, it remains a challenge for nonprofits and community-based organizations to engage in work with families experiencing homelessness and demonstrate meaningful impact across a variety of outcomes. In this policy brief, the authors discuss (1) challenges facing the field of child and family homelessness with respect to data use, (2) recent advancements in the use of data, and (3) strategies to create an organizational culture of data that makes use of recent advancements in data use and addresses current challenges facing the field. The brief makes the argument that fostering a data culture at the organizational level has the capacity to operate as an organizational change agent that improves programs.     

Social Return On Investment (SROI): Problems,solutions … and is SROI a good investment?

The conclusion of this special issue on Social Return On Investment (SROI) begins with a summary of both advantages and problems of SROI, many of which were identified in preceding articles. We also offer potential solutions for some of these problems that can be derived from standard evaluation practices and that are becoming expected in SROIs that follow guidances from international SROI networks. A remaining concern about SROI is that we do not yet know if SROI itself adds sufficient benefit to programs to justify its cost. Two frameworks for this proposed metaevaluation of SROI are suggested, the first comparing benefits to costs summatively (the resource → outcome model). The second framework evaluates costs and benefits according to how much they contribute to or are caused by the different activities of SROI. This resource → activity → outcome model could enable outcomes of SROI to be maximized within resource constraints (such as budget and time limits) on SROI. Alternatively, information from this model could help minimize the costs of achieving a specific level of return on investment from conducting SROI. Possible problems with this metaevaluation of SROI are discussed.     

Contemporary organizational theory: The demographic,relational, and cultural perspectives

We review three perspectives—demographic, relational, and cultural—that have dominated sociological research on organizations during the past four decades. These perspectives arose in reaction to the atomistic and rationalist–adaptationist assumptions of earlier perspectives on organizations. These perspectives have different conceptions of social structure and thus different conceptions of what creates opportunities for and constraints on action. The demographic perspective holds that social structure is constituted by distributions of social actors along salient dimensions of social and physical space; the relational perspective, by webs of social relationships; and the cultural perspective, by widely shared and patterned understandings of reality and possibility. These perspectives also have different conceptions of identity and therefore motivations for action. For demographers, identity derives from position, absolute or relative, along salient dimensions of social life; for relational scholars, from ties among individuals, groups, and organizations; and for cultural scholars, from social interaction. All three perspectives have been applied to explain behavior at five different levels of analysis: the individual, group or organizational subunit, organization, industry or organizational population, and field. Up to the 1990s, these perspectives were generally applied separately, but over the past two decades, studies have increasingly used multiple perspectives.     

SROI in the pay for success context: Are they at odds?

The Pay For Success (PFS) and Social Impact Bond (SIB) movements to date have focused heavily on shorter-term outcomes that can be monetized and show clear savings to government entities. In part, this focus derives from the need to specify contract payments based on a narrow set of well measured outcomes (e.g., avoided days in jail and foster care, decreased use of behavioral health services). Meanwhile efforts to measure the social return on investment (SROI) of interventions have sought to expand the view of relevant outcomes to include domains that lend themselves less clearly to monetization. This paper explores the intersection between these two movements with illustrations from a SIB initiative underway focused on homeless families with children in foster care. Challenges and potential for SROI in a third-party payor environment will be discussed as well as opportunities to better leverage the strengths of both types of initiative.     

Different while being similar: The dual institutional process and differential organizational status

Connecting the neoinstitutional theory with Bourdieu's field theory, we develop a framework on the dual institutional process of integration and differentiation in a field. While the neoinstitutional theory has focused on similar organizational structures, we shift the research focus to offer an institutional explanation of differential organizational status. Drawing insights from Bourdieu's theory and key concepts, we highlight that the very institutional mechanisms causing isomorphism—regulative forces, normative pressures, and cognitive processes—also generate systematic status differentiation among organizations via their different levels of capital, homologous structures, and various habitus in a field. Our extended framework has theoretical significance in advancing the neoinstitutional theory, the research of status in organizational and economic sociology, and the Bourdieusian perspective. By theorizing status differentiation among organizations, it also adds an important dimension to enrich our understanding of multilevel status and social hierarchies.     

How transformational leadership positively impacts organizational citizenship behavior in successful Chinese social work service organizations

Social work service organizations (SWSOs) have developed quickly, and there were nearly 8,000 of such organizations throughout China in the end of 2017. However, this rapid growth has brought both great opportunities and challenges. Globally, leadership has received increasing attention in the social work profession in the 21st century. Among different types of leadership, transformational leadership has been identified as a key issue in bringing more innovation and motivating employees' organizational citizenship behavior to overcome such challenges. Therefore, this study aimed to focus on social workers from the 170 applicants of the “Top 100 Social Work Service Organizations of 2017” which could be seen as the more successful SWSOs in China to examine how transformational leadership impacts organizational citizenship behavior by considering two mechanisms, workplace social capital and professional autonomy, in different areas throughout China. A two‐step process analysis was employed. First, a structural equation model was theoretically built, and it examined the direct and indirect relationships among all four latent variables, considering two mediation effects. Second, multiple group (high social work developed area group versus low social work developed area group) analyses tested the moderation effect. This study confirmed the key role of transformational leadership in the success of SWSOs and found workplace social capital as a full mediator and professional autonomy as a partial mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior. These findings may shed light on the further development of SWSOs from the perspective of enhancing social workers' organizational citizenship behavior.