Upload
vankhuong
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
i March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Bullion Community Resource Centre
The Operational Research Society
Final Report on the Social Return on
Investment by Bullion Hall
March 2017
ii March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
The Social Return on Investment by Bullion Hall A monetary estimate of the social value added by the activities hall at Bullion Hall is calculated. A
social return on investment framework is used for this analysis. The scope of the analysis is limited
to direct beneficiaries, although it is noted that a better resourced study would be likely to identify
additional impact across the wider community served by Bullion Hall. Outcomes identified in a
beneficiary study are valued using an equivalent value technique, with statistical calculations used to
determine the likely number of individuals experiencing outcomes. For the impact attributable to
the activity hall at Bullion Hall, a social return of investment of £4.71 for every £1 input has been
found.
Acknowledgements This report was commissioned through the Operation Research Society’s (ORS) Pro Bono O.R.in the
Third Sector initiative1. The authors would like to thank Felicity McLeister from the ORS, Belinda
Lowis from Bullion Hall, Stephen Davison from the Government Operational Research Service and
Aleen Murtaza from the Government Economic Service for their contribution to this analysis. The
relevant government departments of the authors are also acknowledged for enabling this analysis to
be completed as part of continuous professional development.
The Authors This analysis has completed by Dr Yasmine Ammar, Dr Jamie Douglas, Dr Kayleigh Ellis, Matthew
Miller , Dr Claire Murray and Dr Ian Thomas who are all Government Operational Research Service
(GORS) analysts working across different government departments in England and Scotland.
1 http://www.theorsociety.com/Pages/Probono/Probono.aspx
iii March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Contents The Social Return on Investment by Bullion Hall .................................................................................... ii
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. ii
The Authors ............................................................................................................................................. ii
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Stakeholders and Data Collection ................................................................................................... 2
a. Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................... 2
b. Data ............................................................................................................................................. 2
3. Input and outputs ........................................................................................................................... 4
a. Inputs .......................................................................................................................................... 4
b. Outputs and Outcomes ............................................................................................................... 4
4. Valuing outcomes ........................................................................................................................... 6
a. Statistical analysis of outcome volumes ..................................................................................... 6
b. Duration ...................................................................................................................................... 7
c. Proxy values ................................................................................................................................ 7
5. Establishing impact ......................................................................................................................... 9
a. Factors which affect impact ........................................................................................................ 9
b. Calculating impact ....................................................................................................................... 9
6. Social Return on Investment ......................................................................................................... 12
a. The SROI ratio ........................................................................................................................... 12
b. Sensitivity analysis .................................................................................................................... 12
c. Quality assurance ...................................................................................................................... 14
7. Conclusions and recommendations .............................................................................................. 15
a. Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 15
b. Merits of the method and future recommendations ............................................................... 15
Appendix I – List of proxy values and alternatives................................................................................... I
Appendix II – Impact Map ...................................................................................................................... III
Appendix III – Approaches for valuing outcomes .................................................................................. IV
1 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
1. Introduction In June 2016, Bullion Hall commissioned analysis to quantify the return on investment for the
community activities using its main activity hall. This report presents an estimate of the monetary
value of the social return on investment from these activities.
Bullion Hall is a Community Resource Centre, providing accommodation to a number of local
charities as well as being a thriving and much loved community centre. The main hall at Bullion Hall
is a multi-function activity room and can be divided into two rooms with a sliding partition. This
room is ideal for large groups or active classes, for example dance and exercise classes, indoor
bowls, martial arts and children’s parties. A wide range of activities take place in the activity hall at
Bullion Hall including knitting clubs, yoga, seated exercise classes and luncheon clubs.
A Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology has been adopted to undertake this analysis.
This is a standard and widely accepted way of estimating a monetary value for the social impact of
charities and social enterprises2.
The SROI framework initially identifies the inputs at Bullion Hall. These are the costs, both direct and
indirect, of undertaking the activities at the community centre. These resulting activities are known
as outputs. The outputs are then linked to outcomes for the participants, or beneficiaries, of Bullion
Hall. The outcomes are valued, using suitable techniques, and the total value of all outcomes for all
beneficiaries is calculated. Before the total value can be compared to the associated costs, any part
of an outcome which is attributable elsewhere is deducted. The total value less any deductions is
known as the total impact.
The difference of the total impact of all outcomes and the total costs or inputs is called the net
present value and is one monetary measurement of social value. The ratio of the total impact of all
outcomes and the total costs is known as the social return on investment. This represents the
amount of value generated for each £1 invested in Bullion Hall. The scope of this analysis does not
attempt to provide the complete impact of Bullion Hall across all levels of society. Instead it is
restricted to including only those stakeholders for whom valid and reliable evidence exists for
outcomes achieved as a result of activities at Bullion Hall.
Once stakeholders were identified and inputs and outputs determined, data on the outcomes of
participants at Bullion Hall was gathered in the form of a beneficiary survey. Statistical techniques
were employed to extrapolate the evidence from this survey across all participants of the activity
hall at Bullion Hall. The outcomes for all beneficiaries were valued using equivalent values sourced
from a review of existing literature. This data was quantitatively analysed using the SROI framework
to determine the social return on investment of the activity hall in 2015/16.
The report proceeds with an analysis of the stakeholders and data collection in Section 2. This is
used to inform the inputs and outputs of the analysis in Section 3. Section 4 describes the valuation
of the outcomes of the activity hall at Bullion Hall. These valuations are used to establish impact in
Section 5. The final calculation of social return on investment is shown in Section 6. Conclusions and
future recommendations are proposed in Section 7.
2 https://www.bond.org.uk/data/files/Cabinet_office_A_guide_to_Social_Return_on_Investment.pdf
2 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
2. Stakeholders and Data Collection
a. Stakeholders Table 1 includes stakeholders are those for whom a credible, direct link to Bullion Hall activities can
be established and measured.
Included stakeholders Level of impact Reason for inclusion
Bullion Hall suppliers Direct Costs associated with Bullion Hall, chiefly associated maintenance/running costs.
Bullion Hall Employees Direct Managing Bullion Hall and enabling the activities.
Volunteers Direct Ensuring activities are available for participants.
Participants Direct Primary beneficiaries of the charity.
Activity Tutors Direct Deliver activities at Bullion Hall.
TABLE 1: INCLUDED STAKEHOLDERS
Many excluded stakeholders will receive benefits from activities at Bullion Hall. The reason for their
exclusion is not because of a lack of impact, but that any impact could not be measured within the
resources available to this analysis and/or was likely to have a negligible influence on the final result.
A larger scale, albeit more resource intensive, analysis might potentially capture the impact on these
stakeholders. Excluded stakeholders are included in Table 2.
For example, it is possible to imagine that by helping participants improve their health and wellbeing
Bullion Hall is generating an impact for local NHS providers, or if by providing an increased sense of
local community in participants then crime may fall producing an impact for the police and other
local residents. These wider impacts are outside the scope of this work as the evidence for any
impact would be hard to obtain and even harder to convincingly demonstrate as the result of activity
at Bullion Hall. Accordingly, for the purposes of this analysis, the stakeholders are restricted to staff
and participants of activities hosted at Bullion Hall, and individuals involved in running or facilitating
the activities.
b. Data The data used for this evaluation came from a variety of sources including official accounts, ad hoc
data collection, a beneficiary survey (in the form of participant interviews) and secondary research.
The authenticity of this data is now critically appraised.
The salary and running costs of Bullion Hall are taken from the charity’s published accounts for
2015/16 to generate costs for the inputs of staff and hall maintenance3. These accounts are
published, in line with statutory requirements of the Charity Commission4.
Data on the number of participants taking part in each activity at Bullion Hall have been provided by
the centre management. A full discussion of the number of participants is provided in Section 4a.
These were not formal registers, but informal counts. Similar counts were used for the number of
3 http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends05/0001084105_AC_20160331_E_C.pdf
4 https://www.gov.uk/guidance/prepare-a-charity-annual-return
3 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
volunteers supporting each activity at Bullion Hall. It is acknowledged that there is no way of
assessing the level of repeat attendees in the numbers of participants, and this has been accounted
for this in Section 4a. Published timetables of activities at Bullion Hall have been used to verify the
activity programme, and the centre management have advised regarding changes to the programme
of activities5.
Excluded stakeholders Level of impact Reason for exclusion
Bullion Hall governors Indirect Cannot confidently state that Bullion Hall has a direct impact on the lives of the charity’s governors unless captured by participation.
Families of participants Direct/Indirect Beyond resources of analysis, recommend further study. Local community Indirect Evidence of impact unavailable/beyond resources of analysis.
Local health providers Indirect Evidence of impact beyond resources of analysis/unlikely to prove link to Bullion Hall.
Local Schools Limited Impact likely to be difficult to separate from other factors.
Local government/ council Limited Outside of resources of analysis.
Other charities/ community initiatives
Limited/none No competing organisations identified in initial scope of project.
Local employers Indirect Need to avoid double counting any impact on local labour market/ economy.
Investors Indirect Investment costs captured under Bullion Hall above, no evidence to support a separate stakeholder group.
Local/regional media Direct/limited Not identified during scoping of project.
Transport/bus/taxis Indirect/limited Identified that many participants live locally/any impact likely to be outside of resources of analysis.
TABLE 2: EXCLUDED STAKEHOLDERS
Attendance costs, course fees or subs for attending activities at Bullion Hall have been provided by
the centre management. These costs are also published in Bullion Hall literature and have been
available on the Bullion Hall website, so a level of independent verification has been possible6.
In order to value the outcomes of activities at Bullion Hall secondary data has been relied on to
ascribe financial proxies to each outcome. While this necessarily carries a level of subjectivity a wide
range of potential sources for these proxies has been assessed for each value to ameliorate this risk.
Only those proxies with the greatest validity and least risk have been selected. This is discussed
further in Section 4c.
5 http://bullionhall.btck.co.uk/RegularActivities
6 http://bullionhall.btck.co.uk/RegularActivities/ActivityPricelist
4 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
3. Input and outputs The social cost-benefit analysis undertaken depends on identification and quantification of: the
financial inputs, i.e. expenditure by both Bullion Hall and individuals; the outputs that directly result
from this expenditure, i.e. the activities on offer; and, most challengingly, the resultant beneficial
outcomes that are experienced by participants and/or society.
a. Inputs From the published accounts of Bullion Hall items of input expenditure such as maintenance and
other running costs were identified. Calculations also include volunteer time, subscriptions and fees
paid. These are all fundamental input costs, without which the activities on offer would not take
place.
The café and office space at Bullion Hall are not be considered within scope, so these input costs
were not included. This was to isolate, as much as possible, the social value of the activity hall, at
the request of Bullion Hall in their commission.
There are also specific aspects of centre activity that were deliberately excluded from the analysis,
largely due to a lack of available data. The most significant was the school holiday programme of
activities; see our recommendations for future work in Section 7b.
b. Outputs and Outcomes The outputs are the full programme of time term activities only that Bullion Hall delivered in
2015/16 resulting from the input costs. The outcomes are the benefits experienced by participants
that can be attributed to the undertaking of the activity. The causal link between output and
outcome is important.
To identify the outcomes beneficiary interviews were used as a starting point. In these, the
participants themselves made the direct link between the activity (output) that they had undertaken
and the positive benefit (outcome) that they themselves had felt or observed. This has the benefit
that it is reliant on beneficiaries’ own perceptions rather than the centre management or other
interested groups. The principle drawback was the limitation in the number of interviews and the
non-complete coverage of all activities. To account for this the list of outcomes was expanded by
associating outcomes with particular similar outputs where there were no case-studies to make a
direct causal link.
In total, 14 different outcomes from the full range of outputs were identified. The outputs and
associated primary outcomes are listed in Table 3. Note that each activity (output) often has multiple
benefits (outcomes) and the same outcome can be associated with multiple outputs.
It should be noted that these are only the mappings that could be identified from the available data
within the scope of this analysis. It is likely that in the event of a more thorough investigation of all
outputs and outcomes, additional mappings could be found. Furthermore, although all the
associations between outputs and outcomes listed in Table 3 were identified as being positive, it
should not be assumed that this will always be the case.
5 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Output Outcome(s) Evidence Effect
Skills based sessions, e.g. Furniture upcycling
Stress/mental health
Beneficiary survey Positive
Sense of purpose/achievement Beneficiary survey Positive
Socialising/isolation Beneficiary survey Positive
Quality food/drink Beneficiary survey Positive
IT knowledge/digital participation Beneficiary survey Positive
Family relationships Beneficiary survey Positive
Recovery from injury/illness Beneficiary survey Positive
Confidence Beneficiary survey Positive
Sense of community Beneficiary survey Positive
Lifelong learning Beneficiary survey Positive
Entrepreneurship Beneficiary survey Positive
Sociable sessions, e.g. Ladies that Lunch
Stress/mental health Beneficiary survey Positive
Socialising/isolation Beneficiary survey Positive
Quality food and drink Beneficiary survey Positive
Family relationships Beneficiary survey Positive
Recovery from injury/illness Beneficiary survey Positive
Confidence Beneficiary survey Positive
Encouraging others Beneficiary survey Positive
Sense of community Beneficiary survey Positive
Exercise sessions e.g. Ballet Exercise Assumed Positive
Hobbies, e.g. patchwork quilters
Stress/mental health Beneficiary survey Positive
Sense of purpose/achievement Beneficiary survey Positive
Socialising/isolation Beneficiary survey Positive
Family relationships Beneficiary survey Positive
Recovery from injury/illness Beneficiary survey Positive
Confidence Beneficiary survey Positive
Encouraging others Beneficiary survey Positive
Sense of community Beneficiary survey Positive
Lifelong learning Beneficiary survey Positive
Parent and child sessions, e.g. parent and toddler classes
Stress/mental health Beneficiary survey Positive
Improved confidence Beneficiary survey Positive
Sense of community Beneficiary survey Positive
Other sessions, e.g. health action groups
No outcomes identified. n/a n/a
TABLE 3: MAPPING OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES
Alternative datasets that could have been used to identify broader outcomes include data from the
local NHS, Police figures on crime rates or anti-social behaviour, or data from the Department for
Work and Pensions on local employment. For example, an increased sense of community in
participants at Bullion Hall could be expected to result in a reduction in violence or crime in the
surrounding area. Similarly activities at Bullion Hall that encourage good fitness and diet could lead
to a lower burden on local NHS services. Job club or entrepreneurial activity at Bullion Hall could
lead to an improvement in the local employment rate. However, it was decided that extending the
analysis to these broader outcomes was not feasible due to the challenge of a very small signal to
noise ratio and the risk of contamination of the outcome by other external factors beyond the scope
of this analysis, such as local and national programmes to improve these outcomes.
6 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
4. Valuing outcomes
a. Statistical analysis of outcome volumes The beneficiary survey took the form of interviews conducted with a random sample of Bullion Hall
participants by the Development Manager at Bullion Hall. In total 22 in depth interviews were
undertaken. The beneficiaries’ responses were transcribed and redacted before being used for
analysis. Statistical techniques were used to distribute the outcomes identified in Section 3 across
the total number of participants attending similar activities at Bullion Hall. The total number of
participants for each activity at Bullion Hall was obtained from registers provided by the Hall’s
management.
Activities at Bullion Hall were grouped into themes related to: learning new skills; sociable sessions;
exercise sessions: hobbies; and, parent and child activities. Each theme of activities was mutually
exclusive, so an activity appears in only one grouping.
Interviews with the beneficiaries referring to participation at activities from each theme were used
as the sample of all participants for that grouping. From this sample the proportion of case studies
which reported a particular outcome was used as the proportion of all participants in the theme who
experienced that outcome, as shown in Figure 1: Statistical Sampling. The total number of
participants was obtained by summing the registers of each activity in a theme.
FIGURE 1: STATISTICAL SAMPLING
It is incumbent on this analysis to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of this approach.
Examining a random sample of the participants is a valid way of determining the probable
distribution of outcomes for participants of a themed group of activities. In this way the method has
statistical rigour. An effort has also been made not to assume that all activities at Bullion Hall
delivers the same outcomes to all participants, which would have been the assumption if the case
studies had been taken as being proportionally representative of all participants of all activities.
Given the relatively small sample size of the case studies, reliability could be an issue in this
approach. To account for this standard confidence intervals have been calculated for each estimate
7 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
of the number of participants in each group experiencing an outcome. Sensitivity analysis using
these confidence intervals on the number of beneficiaries is shown in Section 6.
It is recognised that some individuals attending Bullion Hall could attend multiple activities. While
this is acknowledged as a risk there is no data to support a quantitative deduction based on such an
assumption. To justify this approach, an alternative assumption could be that the same group of
individuals attend every available course at Bullion Hall. This would be rejected as improbable.
There was also a methodological challenge in grouping the activities into those likely to have similar
outcomes. By basing the analysis on groups that have similar intended outcomes for participants,
for example exercise classes, any potential bias has been minimised.
b. Duration The outcomes participants of activities at Bullion Hall experience vary in their duration. Many
outcomes rely on the continued attendance of participants at Bullion Hall and where this is the case,
for example the outcome of improved mental health, this outcome is assumed to only be
experienced for the 39 weeks of the year where the term time activity timetable is in effect.
Exceptions to this assumption include outcomes where the proxy value is taken to be a subscription
which would necessitate an ongoing fee, for example a gym membership or home broadband.
Equally, where an outcome could be achieved with a discrete or finite number of sessions, for
example an improvement in family relationships through family therapy course, it has been assumed
that standard course duration would have the same impact as the continued attendance of a
participant at Bullion Hall. There are also examples of where the outcome could only be achieved
through a one-off setup fee which is assumed to apply only once, for example in purchasing IT
equipment to develop digital participation.
All of the assumptions about the duration of outcomes obtained by participants at Bullion Hall are
listed in the proxy section in Appendix I – List of proxy values and alternatives.
No assumptions about the long-term benefit participants might experience by attending activities at
Bullion Hall has been made. In the absence of evidence it would be challenging to make such an
assumption, and the on-going nature of activities at Bullion Hall suggests that outcomes for
participants could cease in the absence of their continued attendance.
c. Proxy values To establish the unit value of outcomes related to activities at Bullion Hall an approach of equivalent
value was used. This approach relies on selecting an equivalent activity that participants at Bullion
Hall could undertake to achieve the same outcome as we have identified through the analysis.
The equivalent values were selected by examining each outcome and considering a range of possible
alternative activities to achieve the same. This included values used for the same outcome in other
analyses, internet searches and assumptions about alternative activities made by the authors in
collaboration with government economists. From this range of possible equivalent values the
strengths and weaknesses of each alternative was assessed. Proxies previously used in peer
reviewed academic journals carried more weight than individual opinions of report writers. The
timeliness of each potential proxy was examined to give more credibility to more recent options.
8 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Ultimately, overall value judgements about the relative strengths and weaknesses of each equivalent
value under consideration were made, and the equivalent value considered the most authentic
proxy for each outcome was selected. The full list of potential equivalent values is found in
Appendix II.
As equivalent values were selected their unit cost was determined. This allowed us to select, based
on the examination of the duration of a benefit in Section 4b, the correct number of units of
equivalent value per person for each outcome. The total outcome value for each outcome is
calculated as the product of the unit cost, duration and number of beneficiaries, as shown in Figure
2: Calculating total present value.
FIGURE 2: CALCULATING TOTAL PRESENT VALUE
Although an equivalent value technique has been applied here, it is reasonable to justify that
decision through consideration of alternative approaches. This is discussed further in Appendix III.
9 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
5. Establishing impact This section examines the impact of Bullion Hall with reference to the other factors that influence it.
a. Factors which affect impact In order to accurately calculate the Social Return on Investment, the outcomes identified must be
reviewed to estimate how much of each outcome would have happened anyway and what
proportion of the outcome can be isolated as being added by the activities of Bullion Hall.
There are four components to consider:
Attribution measures how much of the outcome is attributed to other activities. Was there another
service that the individual was using, alongside Bullion Hall, which could have also had a positive
contribution?
Deadweight identifies how much of the outcome would have happened anyway in the absence of
the beneficiary attending activities at Bullion Hall.
Displacement assesses how much of the outcomes from Bullion Hall have displaced other outcomes
that are likely to have arisen in the absence of the centre.
Drop Off calculates the decline in the outcome over time, once participation is complete.
There is a lack of evidence in the available data to individually determine values these four
components for all participants. Accordingly the beneficiary interviews and similar calculations from
other published SROI reports have been used to estimate overall values. Attribution, deadweight
and displacement components were combined into one overall discount rate. This was considered
appropriate given the lack of data available to assess the individual components. The drop off rate
was used to represent the period of the reporting year 2015/16 for which a benefit would continue
for a participant.
Table 4 shows the impact rates and drop off rates for each outcome and our rationale. 100%
represents that Bullion Hall contributed fully to the outcome whereas 0% represents no outcome
contribution. Similarly for drop off, a 100% represents that the outcome lasted a full year.
b. Calculating impact The impact and drop off rates have been applied to the proxy values identified in Section 4. The
calculation of the total impact of each outcome is shown in Table 5.
10 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Outcome Impact Rate
Rationale Drop off rate
Rationale
Stress/mental health 90% Assumed that other services such as the NHS may contribute to this outcome but as this was not mentioned in any case study we have left the rate quite high.
100% Assume this would continue for period after course ends.
Sense of purpose/ achievement
100% No evidence to suggest that any other activity contributed to this outcome.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Socialising/tackling isolation
100% No evidence to suggest that any other activity contributed to this outcome.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Quality food and drink
100% No evidence to suggest that any other activity contributed to this outcome.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Exercise 50% Assume that participants are not inactive for rest of week.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
IT knowledge/digital participation
100% No evidence to suggest that any other activity contributed to this outcome.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Family/relationship improvement
100% No evidence to suggest that any other activity contributed to this outcome.
100% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Overcoming injury/illness
50% Assumed that other services such as the NHS may contribute to this outcome.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Improved confidence 100% No evidence to suggest that any other activity contributed to this outcome.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Encouraging others 66% Some case studies indicated that this outcome may also be linked to other organisations.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Sense of community 100% No evidence to suggest that any other activity contributed to this outcome.
100% Assume this would continue for period after course ends.
Lifelong learning 14% Assume that individual would continue to learn on rest of the week (6 days) when not at Bullion Hall.
75% Assume that this would only continue for the length of the course (39 weeks).
Entrepreneurship 100% No evidence to suggest that any other activity contributed to this outcome.
100% Assume this would continue for period after course ends.
TABLE 4: DETERMINING IMPACT AND DROP OFF
11 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Outcome Proxy Value (A)
Estimated Number of Participants (B)
Total Outcome (C = A X B)
Impact Rate (D)
Drop off rate (E)
Impact (F = C X D X E)
Stress/mental health £2,340 169 £394,658 90% 100% £355,192
Sense of purpose/achievement £2,564 20 £52,517 100% 75% £39,388
Socialising/tackling isolation £2,223 80 £177,649 100% 75% £133,237
Quality food and drink £312 41 £12,759 100% 75% £9,569
Exercise £342 121 £41,382 50% 75% £15,518
IT knowledge/digital participation
£509 7 £3,799 100% 75% £2,849
Family/relationship improvement
£300 46 £13,934 100% 100% £13,934
Overcoming injury/illness £270 30 £8,028 50% 75% £3,011
Improved confidence £360 155 £55,838 100% 75% £41,878
Encouraging others £33 26 £845 66% 75% £418
Sense of community £1,747 125 £219,024 100% 100% £219,024
Lifelong learning £210 61 £12,886 14% 75% £1,353
Entrepreneurship £135 4 £502 100% 100% £502
TOTAL £835,875
TABLE 5: CALCULATING IMPACT
12 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
6. Social Return on Investment
a. The SROI ratio The Social Return on Investment (SROI) Value is expressed as a ratio of return and is derived by
dividing the total value of the impact by the value of the investment, i.e. the costs of running Bullion
Hall.
In this analysis, the total impact calculation is as follows:
SROI = Total present value
Total input value
The estimated impact for the activities run from the Bullion Hall in 2015/16 was £835,875, see Table
5. This represents an estimate of the social value created by Bullion Hall.
As the benefits of the activity hall at Bullion Hall have been calculated for only one year and not
projected benefits into the future, the Total Present Value is the total of all impacts, £835,875. This
is now compared to the input costs.
The total input costs at Bullion Hall are the Bullion Hall staff costs, the maintenance costs for Bullion
Hall, the associated cost of volunteer time and the sum of the attendance fees for each activity at
Bullion Hall across the 39 weeks of the term time activity programme. This is shown in Appendix II,
and is calculated to be £177,390 in 2015/16.
Figure 3: Net present value shows the Net Present Value of the activity hall at Bullion Hall in
2015/16.
Figure 4: SROI shows the social return on investment of the activity hall at Bullion Hall 2015/16.
This means that for every pound of investment in Bullion Hall and its activities, £4.71 of social value
is created. This is a comparable social return on investment to those found in other reviews of
social investment, for example Vineburgh7 and Craft Café8.
b. Sensitivity analysis The results presented in this report are based on variables and assumptions according to available
evidence, including qualitative data on the experience of members of Bullion Hall. This calls for
further analysis and validations to ensure that results are robust.
7 http://www.socialvalueuk.org/app/uploads/2016/03/Vineburgh%20SROI%20Report%20Final%20Assured.pdf
8 http://www.socialvaluelab.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CraftCafeSROI.pdf
Net Present Value £835,875 – £177,390 = £658,485.
SROI £835,875
£117,390 = £4.71 : £1.
FIGURE 3: NET PRESENT VALUE
FIGURE 4: SROI
13 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Sensitivity analysis is used to test variables and assumptions given that there are areas of the base
case that could be derived from imperfect evidence. Table 6 shows which areas were chosen as
those with the biggest potential to affect the results.
Outcome Base Case New Case SROI (value per £1 input)
Stress/mental health outcome
169 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£2.94
Sense of purpose/achievement outcome
20 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.49
Socialising/tackling isolation outcome
80 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£3.97
Quality food and drink outcome
41 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.66
Exercise outcome 121 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.62
IT knowledge/digital participation outcome
7 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.70
Family/relationship improvement outcome
46 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.63
Overcoming injury/illness outcome
30 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.70
Improved confidence outcome
155 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.50
Encouraging others outcome
26 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.71
Sense of community outcome
125 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£3.48
Lifelong learning outcome 61 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.71
Entrepreneurship outcome 4 participants experienced this outcome
No participants experienced this outcome
£4.71
Drop Off Rate Some outcomes last for the full
year No outcomes last for more than course duration (39 weeks)
£3.88
Impact Rate Depending on outcome ranging
from 50% impact rate for all outcomes
£2.54
Stress/mental health outcome
169 participants experienced this outcome
318 participants experienced this outcome
£6.49
TABLE 6: SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
14 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
This sensitivity analysis shows that if the values used in the analysis are reduced from their
estimated values, the Social Return on investment is unlikely to fall below £2.54 : £1. This value
would be reached if the assumptions around each outcome’s impact rate were reduced to 50%.
Since reducing the equivalent value proxy to zero produces the same outcome as setting the number
of participants to zero, they will produce the same SROI. As such the values presented in Table 6 for
each outcome can be taken as the lower
estimate for fewer participants experiencing
each outcome.
If more data could have been obtained at an
earlier stage, particularly in relation to the
number of participants experiencing each
outcome, then the social return of Bullion Hall
could increase. The analysis presented here
indicates that 169 participants experienced a
stress or mental health improvement as a result
of attending activities at Bullion Hall. If this was
to increase to 318 participants, which is the
upper bound of the confidence interval, then the
SROI ratio would increase to £6.49 : £1.
c. Quality assurance The work was undertaken by a team of experienced analysts who cross checked and questioned
each other’s assumptions as the methodology was developed. Importantly, there was new and
external input to the project at the final stages of quality assurance.
Throughout the course of the work, particularly at the stages which involved selection of monetary
values, consideration was given to the sensitivity of the final result to the parameter in question.
Some of the sensitivity testing, though not all of the checks undertaken, is described in Section 7b.
Confidence intervals
Confidence intervals are a way of indicating
uncertainty when using samples of data.
For each outcome identified in the sample of case
studies, the confidence interval indicate that if
participants were resampled many times, it would
be expected that 95% of computed confidence
intervals would contain the true mean average
proportion of participants exhibiting that outcome.
It would therefore be considered unlikely for the
true proportion to lie outside out confidence
interval.
15 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
7. Conclusions and recommendations
a. Conclusions This report was commissioned to determine the social value generated by the activity hall at Bullion
Hall Community Resource Centre. The scope was limited to identifiable outcomes for participants at
Bullion Hall, and excluded wider social outcomes such as health, employment or criminal activity
benefits. This analysis was conducted on the basis of the programme of activities at Bullion Hall
during the 39 weeks a year that the term-time timetable is in operation. The reporting year is
2015/16.
By using a social return on investment framework, the social return on investment is assessed to be
£4.71:£1, so that for every £1 invested a social return of £4.71 is generated. This lies within a
potential range of values between £2.54:£1 and in excess of £6.49:£1. The total net present social
value of the activity hall in 2015/16 is assessed to be £658,485.
This analysis indicates that the activity hall at Bullion Hall generates a valuable social return to its
community, as well as providing a much loved local resource. The benefit of activities to the
beneficiaries exceeds the cost of delivery as measured in this analysis, and this report recommends
the continued investment in the activity hall to continue providing these outcomes.
The outcomes included in this analysis were restricted to those highlighted by beneficiaries in their
interviews. It is likely there are other potential outcomes of Bullion Hall that were not captured
through this data gather, so are not included in the analysis. While it should be recognised that
outcomes are not necessarily positive, the inclusion of any omitted benefits is likely to have a
positive impact on the social return on investment in only one direction. The value of social return
on investment in this report is therefore considered to be a conservative estimate.
b. Merits of the method and future recommendations Throughout the analysis a robust and recognised framework was used. This analysis indicated a
social return on investment of the activity hall at Bullion Hall of £4.71:£1 that has been presented in
Section7. This result is considered robust and fit for the purpose of showing potential funders an
estimate of the value added by the hall and the social return that might be expected from their
investment
The uncertainties and limitations of the analysis have been elucidated. These can broadly be split
into three categories: lack of data and data limitations; uncertainties and subjectivities inherent in
this kind of analysis; resource constraints.
There are areas which could be improved in any future analysis. One of the main challenges related
to the amount of data that was available in the beneficiary interviews. Whilst these were an
invaluable source of evidence, they were collected prior to the involvement of the analysts. In future
projects it would be beneficial for analysts to be involved at an earlier stage, allowing design of the
data collection activities to target it for specific analytical purposes.
Higher quality data would enable analysts to generate more options for proxy values, identify wider
stakeholders and develop a better understanding of the deadweight and attribution. Bullion Hall
could further assist in producing a useful dataset by retaining a register of participants per activity
16 March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
per week so that this could be easily extrapolated across the year. The single biggest
recommendation would be to investigate ways by which the school holiday activities, a significant 13
week section of each year, could be incorporated into the analysis to give overall return on
investment over the course of a whole year.
I March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Appendix I – List of proxy values and alternatives Proxies highlighted are those which have been selected for our analysis.
Outcome Proxy Source Date Value Per Pros Cons
Counselling course https://counselling-newcastle.co.uk/faqs/what-are-your-fees/ 2016 £60.00 per session
Counselling courses are a well used proxy for
improving stress or mental health, with continuous
treatment frequently used.
A local counselling course may underestimate the
value associated compared to treatment through the
NHS.
Counselling course GVE | SROI real jobs evaluation 2010 £1,085.00 course Same outcome Not the same activity as Bullion hall
Counselling course GVE | Mental healh reduced stress in self employed people 2010 £630.00
9 session
course Not self employed participants
Value of having no problems wit hanti social behaviour Vineborough Regenerative initiaive 2014 £6,403.00 Year Improved stress/mental health not related to ASB
Stress management course GVE | SROI 2015 £245.00 course One-off course
Hospital treatment of stress related disorders GVE | SROI 2008 $4257 treatment Canadian, 2008
Counselling course Life cycle UK SROI summary report, Karen Bell 2013 £2,080.00 year
Same outcome and proxy as our study, restricted
our assumption to 5 hours
Counselling course Craft café creative solutions to isolation and lonliness 2011 £2,080.00 year
Same outcome and proxy as our study, restricted
our assumption to 5 hours
Part time job
http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork
/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/ashe1997to2015selectedest
imates
2015 £6.70 per hours
Attending Bullion Hall requires the same
organisation and personal care that would be
expected by an employer. A part time job to proxy a
sense of achievement is commonly used.
There is a range of hours and hourly pay used to
describe a part time job in other studies.
Part time work, 5 hours Life cycle UK SROI summary report, Karen Bell 2013 £2,563.60 year
Same outcome and proxy as our study, restricted
our assumption to 5 hours Value is not based on minimum wage
Part time work, 5 hours Craft café creative solutions to isolation and lonliness 2011 £2,563.60 year
Same outcome and proxy as our study, restricted
our assumption to 5 hours
Value is not based on minimum wage, but median
gross earnings
Club membership/social workerhttp://neweconomymanchester.com/our-work/research-evaluation-
cost-benefit-analysis/cost-benefit-analysis/unit-cost-database2015 £57.00 per hour
Social workers are commonly used in similar
analyses to proxy tackling isolation.
An alternative proxy could be a club membership,
however this would require a stated preference
technique if there are no clubs/organisations within a
similar distance to the community to Bullion Hall.
Average spending on cultural and recreational activities Life cycle UK SROI summary report, Karen Bell 2013 £769.00 Year
Not directly attributable to tackling isolation and
lonliness
Family spending Craft café creative solutions to isolation and lonliness 2011 £769.60 Year
Not directly attributable to tackling isolation and
lonliness
Value of one activity with friends per week Vineborough Regenerative initiaive 2014 £1,014.00 Year Subjective, revealed preference
12 week programme for unemployed men with mental health
issues GVE | MOJO SROI 2014 £2,337.00 course Unknown technique
Restaurant meal http://www.workgateways.com/working-in-the-uk/cost-of-living 2016 £8.00 per meal
We are making the assumption that only 1 meal a
week would be improved by attending a suitable
activity at Bullion hall. This is proxied by a
reasonably priced restaurant meal, and will be offset
by the cost of attending a suitable activity.
Invidiuals could reasonably be expected to spend
more time with family rather than attend Bullion Hall,
which would lead to them potentially getting a quality
meal an a lower cost. This is an unsubstanciated
assumption however.
Average weekly spend on food GVE | ONS 2011 £53.20 week Similar value Proxy is for 1 week
Average weekly spend on food and (non alcoholic) drinks GVE| ONS 2013 £56.80 weeks Similar value Proxy is for 1 week
Additional amount spend on food which produces long term
health implications due to a better diet GVE | ONS 2011 £2,941.00 year Similar proxy Proxy is for one year assuming food every day
Gym membership http://my.northtyneside.gov.uk/category/251/memberships 2016 £28.50 per month
It is commonly recommended that individuals do 20-
30 minutes of vigorous activity every day. This could
reasonably be replicated by a gym membership.
The vigorous activity could be done free of charge
by individuals, although this would require an
assumption to be made about individuals intrinsic
motivation
Guided healthy walk in the city Craft café creative solutions to isolation and lonliness 2011 £1,092.00 Year Probably a similar proxy
Weekly group exercises GVE | Age concern kingston 2010 £5.20 hour Similar proxy
Frequent mild exercise GVE | HCAT calculator 2016 £3,633.18 year Based in London
Frequent mild exercise GVE | HCAT calculator 2016 £3,537.12 year Not based in London Unknown frequency
Annual cost of an active hobby (gym) GVE | Yorkshire bank 2008 £480.00 year Similar proxy £2,008.00
Cost of equipment/training course/monthly internet cost https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/packages/ 2016 £17.40 per month
The UK government is committed to 95% of the
country getting high speed broadband and 10)% of
the country getting basic broadband. This is a
minimum retail cost of broadband.
Effective subsidies for broadband connections are
available for some low income households.
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/computing/desktop-pcs/desktop-
pcs/1093_8225_71255_xx_xx/1_20/price-asc/xx-criteria.html2016 £300.00 one off
Individuals would require equipment to access the
worldwide web.
The cost could be amortised across several years,
and lower cost options are available, for example
tablet computers or smartphones.
Internet and media access in families GVE | Get IT (with BT) 2014 £1,064.00 year Not providing kit to inviduals home
Internet usage costs GVE | ONS 2012 £6.30 week Does not account for cost of equipment
Stress/mental health
Sense of purpose/achievement
Exercise
IT knowledge/digital participation
Socialising/tackling isolation
Quality food and drink
II March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Outcome Proxy Source Date Value Per Pros Cons
Relate counselling course http://www.relatenortheast.org.uk/page/faq 2016 £50.00 per session
Counselling courses are a well used proxy. Relate
are a nationwide relationship counselling service,
with local branches. A 6-course session has been
used in other SROI calculations.
If participants attend Bullion hall every week, a 6-
week course could underestimate the improvement
of their relationships. Equally, if their activity at
Bullion Hall is not necessrily leading to better social
and relationship skills, the proxy may overestimate
this.
Dig money/room and board Vineborough Regenerative initiaive 2014 £1,815.46 Year Relevant to apprentices, relvealed preference
Wellbeing valuation GVE | Catalysts for community action SROI 2010 £15,500.00 year
Increase from seeing friends and family once or
twice a week to everyday
Improved relationships from adult learning GVE | Fujiwara 2012 £658.00 year Proxy is cost of course only
Counselling course Craft café creative solutions to isolation and lonliness 2011 £510.00 year Same outcome and proxy Proxy uses 12 week session, not 6
Stated preference GVE | sandwell complex needs SROI - £26,600.00 year No date, no indication of the level of intervention
Family counselling Life cycle UK SROI summary report, Karen Bell 2013 £255.00 year Same outcome and proxy This proxy is used for friends and family
Family counselling Arvidson, Battye and Salisbury 2014 £270.00 year Same outcome and proxy This proxy is for community befriending
Physio sesions https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/physiotherapy/faqs 2016 £270.00 per course
Attending Bullion Hall encourages activity, widely
accepted to help with the recovery from injury and
illness.
Fails to give due weight to the associated costs o
the mental/emotional recovery from illness/injury.
Depression owing to long term illness - difference in cost
between those with and without depression GVE | centre for mental health 2012 £296.00 month Probably what participants refer to
Not an accurate calculation as fails to account for
cost of treating non-depressed patients
Average cost of treating stress related physical illness GVE | centre for economic performance 2012 £1,493.00 treatment
Physical illness is not necessarily caused by stress,
more an associated factor
Self-help course/life coaching http://www.judedauntcoaching.co.uk/specifications/ 2016 £45.00 per session
A confidence building course is a suitable proxy for
improved confidence and has been used in other
SROI studies.
This local proxy might not be representative of the
generally accepted cost of such a course.
Confidence course GVE | Coventry's local enterprise and growth initiative 2008 £995.00 year Similar proxy Not a similar activity
Referrers fee, Birtley lifestyle fitnesshttps://www.snapdda.co.uk/clients/Lifestyle/LifestyleSnapDDASig
nup2.aspx?branch=birtley2016 £32.50 per referral
Recruiting a friend or family member to a gym is
analogous to encouraging one to attend Bullion Hall,
as something with which the individual associates
value.
Different local organisations/fitness centres have
different prices and rewards for referrals.
Street partyhttp://www.tesco.com/direct/party-gifts-
flowers/bunting/cat19280016.cat2016 £10.00
food and
bunting
Does not seek to overestimate the value of a sense
of community, but suggests another activity that
could provide a similar outcome.
Significantly underestimates the cost of community
time to organise.
Cost of 2 state funded community workers Life cycle UK SROI summary report, Karen Bell 2013 £56,922.00 Year Recognises high value of difference Potentially overestimates the community developed
Value of living in a good neighbourhood Vineborough Regenerative initiaive 2014 £1,747.00 Year Recognises high value of difference Potentially overestimates the community developed
Feeling part of the community GVE | Guide to economic analysis living well in the west midlands 2010 £11,600.00 year Not the same as developing community spirit
Adult learning course/college course Newcastle City Learning 2016 £70.00 per courseAdult learning courses are frequently used as a
proxy for adult learning in other SROI calculations.
Lifelong learning has associated benefits, e.g.
employability, not captured in this proxy.
Access to learning GVE | DfT 2003 £370.00 year 2003, outcome not similar
Adult learning course GVE | social impact of housing providers 2013 £754.00 course Work related, not the same outcome
Willingness to pay GVE | BIS 2012 £897.00 course To facilitate progresion in to FE
Enterpeneurship course https://www.lynda.com/promo/trial/default.aspx?lpk35=8006 2016 £14.95 per month
A local course offering entrepenuership is a more
suitable proxy than an MBA which would provide
more content at more cost.
£0.00
Cost of setting and achieving business objective course GVE | social value lab \ £510.00 \ No year and no timescale
Minimum wage 2016 -£6.70 per hoursVolunteering is captured at a cost that could be met
by employing an individual.
Volunteers of the requisite skills to deliver the
courses could demand a higher market rate.
Volunteering GVE | wellbeing and civil society 2011 -£13,500.00 volunteer Does not recoginse limited time for volunteers
Volunteering regularly GVE | social impact of housing providers 2013 -£11,800.00 year Does not recoginse limited time for volunteers
Volunteering once a week, minimum wage GVE | improving service for young people 2010 -£250.64 year one hour per week is likely to be the norm
Family/relationship improvement
Overcoming injury/illness
Lifelong learning
Entrepenuership
Volunteering
Improved confidence
Encouraging others
Sense of community
III March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Appendix II – Impact Map
Stage 1
Stakeholders Inputs Value Outputs Outcomes Indicator
Quantity (estimated
number of cases
with outcome)
Duration
(years)Financial proxy Proxy value Source Deadweight/attribution Impact
Who does Bullion Hall have
an effect on? Who has an
effect on Bullion Hall?
What is invested? Summary of activities What changes?How did we measure the
change?
How many people
changed?
How long
does the
change
last?
What proxy was used to value the
change?
Where did the information about the proxy
come from?
What would have happened
without the activity/who else
contributed to the change?
Quantity times financial proxy times
duration less deadweight/attirbution
Crafts with the Story ladies
Dot & Zooky
Dry Ice Experience
Foam making fun
Frictionless Fun
Helen
Mr Fox String Puppet
Pop up Plate Puppets
A Box of tricks
Ballet
British Horological Institute North East Branch
Bumble Bag Puppet
Caring for pets
Cestria Folk & Acoustic
Cestria Patchwork Quilters
Childrens parties
Classification
Confidence Building for Men
Confidence building for women
Musical Minis
Craft Courses
Discos
Drum Circle
Durham County Carers Anonymous
Durham Society of Magicians
Easels Art Group
Folk and Acoustic Night
food chains
Furniture Upcycling
Guitar class
Habitats
Health action groups
How to be a child minder
How to build a computer
KLX Dance
Kumon (Math’s & English
Ladies that Lunch
Ladies Together
Level 1 and 2 in Volunteering
Luncheon Club
Lyengar Yoga
Men’s Cree
Messy Play
Monday Morning Job Club
Nail Art
Northern Karate
Palm Reading, Auras and Angel
Parent & Toddlers
Parish Toddlers
Pilates Exercise Class
Probation Service
Rainforests
Savvy Saving
School holiday activities
Senior Carpet Bowls
Bullion Hall Staff Time (salary) £48,412.00 Sewing Class
Bullion Hall Venue (running costs) £35,752.00 Spiritual and Psychic Development Group
Volunteers Time (hours volunteered x minimum wage) £8,361.60 Swing Fit
Tutors Time (attendance fees/subs) £84,864.00 Tea Dance
£177,389.60 £835,874.52
£1,353.03
Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4
£1,747.00http://www.tesco.com/direct/party-gifts-
flowers/bunting/cat19280016.cat0% £219,023.89
61 0.75 Adult learning course/college course £210.00 Vineborough Regenerative initiaive 86%
Referrers fee, Birtley lifestyle fitness0.7526
125 1Value of living in a good
neighbourhood
0% £41,878.29
£418.2834%
https://www.snapdda.co.uk/clients/Lifestyle/
LifestyleSnapDDASignup2.aspx?branch=b
irtley
£32.50
30
155 0.75 Self-help course/life coaching £360.00http://www.judedauntcoaching.co.uk/specifi
cations/
50% £3,010.50https://www.nuffieldhealth.com/physiotherap
y/faqs£270.00Physio sesions0.75
1 Relate counselling course £300.00 http://www.relatenortheast.org.uk/page/faq 0% £13,934.29
£2,849.280%
https://www.uswitch.com/broadband/packa
ges/ &
http://www.pcworld.co.uk/gbuk/computing/d
esktop-pcs/desktop-
£508.80Cost of equipment/training
course/monthly internet cost0.75
0.75 Gym membership £342.00http://my.northtyneside.gov.uk/category/251/
memberships50% £15,518.25
0.75 Restaurant meal £312.00http://www.workgateways.com/working-in-
the-uk/cost-of-living0% £9,569.49
0.75 Club membership/social worker £2,223.00
http://neweconomymanchester.com/our-
work/research-evaluation-cost-benefit-
analysis/cost-benefit-analysis/unit-cost-
database
0% £133,237.09
https://counselling-
newcastle.co.uk/faqs/what-are-your-fees/10% £355,191.94
0.75 Part time work, 5 hours £2,563.60Life cycle UK SROI summary report, Karen
Bell0% £39,387.88
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
169
20
80
41
121
7
46
Lifelong learning
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
Self reported (case study)
IT knowledge/digital
participation
Family/relationship
improvement
Overcoming injury/illness
Improved confidence
Encouraging others
Sense of community
0% £502.32
Participants Time (Free) £0.00
Stress/mental health
Sense of
purpose/achievement
Socialising/tackling
isolation
Quality food and drink
Exercise
Entrepenuership Self reported (case study) 4 1 Enterpeneurship course £134.55https://www.lynda.com/promo/trial/default.as
px?lpk35=8006
1 Counselling course £2,340.00
IV March 2017: SROI of Bullion Hall 2015/16
Appendix III – Approaches for valuing outcomes The selected technique of equivalent value is used in Section 4. In this Appendix the different
valuation approaches that were explored are discussed.
The use of equivalent value inhibits the authors’ ability to bias the valuation of each outcome. This
is achieved since restricting values to only those which can be demonstrated using a credible
alternative activity prohibits unjustified valuations. It places no judgement on the ability of a
participant to afford such an alternative, adding to its authenticity as an approach.
Contingent value is the self-reported value placed on an outcome by a participant. This technique
can be effectively used where no credible equivalent value can be found. Owing to a lack of
evidence in our case study interviews, and the excessively subjective nature of the technique, we
chose not to pursue contingent values in this analysis.
By considering the explicit and implicit prices of the constituent parts of participants’ attendance at
an activity at Bullion Hall it would be possible to determine proxy values for outcomes through the
revealed preference technique. This would take into account the full cost of attendance for a
participant, including potential childcare costs is none were available, transport costs were
necessary, clothing or equipment costs and a valuation of the time spend on the activity. This
technique is more objective that contingent value, however routinely undervalues the true worth to
an individual of their outcomes. We discounted this approach owing to a lack of data about the
implicit and explicit costs for individual participants, and the risk of failing to account for value
obtained through an outcome beyond the constituent cost, such as improvements in mental health
or a sense of community.
The travel cost method determines the value an individual places on an outcome by questioning
how far the individual would travel to obtain this outcome. The value is obtained by determining
the cost of travelling that distance. For our study this could have been a valid approach in that there
is a level of objectivity to the measurement, however we rejected this approach on the basis that to
gather enough data to make a robust valuation of each outcome was beyond the resources
available, and would likely not prove a significant improvement over the equivalent value technique
we have adopted.
National surveys, such as the Family Resources Survey (FRS), can provide data about average
household spending. This can be used as a proxy for the value of certain outcomes, for example
annual weekly spend on food or entertainment. Although this is an objective measure for many
everyday activities, for example participating in sports, the outcomes identified by participants at
Bullion Hall would make finding a suitable proxy challenging, for example tackling social isolation.