scholarly journals The social value of the arts for care home residents in England: A Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis of the Imagine Arts programme

Maturitas ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 15-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Bosco ◽  
Justine Schneider ◽  
Emma Broome
Keyword(s):  
Return On Investment ◽  
Care Home ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Social Return On Investment ◽  
The Arts ◽  
The Social

scholarly journals Capturing the social value of buildings: The promise of Social Return on Investment (SROI)

2016 ◽  
Vol 103 ◽  
pp. 289-301 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly J. Watson ◽  
James Evans ◽  
Andrew Karvonen ◽  
Tim Whitley
Keyword(s):  
Return On Investment ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Social Return On Investment ◽  
The Social

The social return on investment in community befriending

2014 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-240 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malin Arvidson ◽  
Fraser Battye ◽  
David Salisbury
Keyword(s):  
Return On Investment ◽  
Public Services ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Value For Money ◽  
Long Term Effects ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Social Return On Investment ◽  
The Social ◽  
Post Natal Depression

Purpose – This paper seeks to illustrate the social and economic impact of services delivered by a small charity to families affected by post-natal depression (PND). It highlights challenges and offers insights to the meaning of “social value” and “value for money” for commissioners of public health services. This has relevance for the introduction of new policies regarding commissioning. Design/methodology/approach – The analysis is based on a social return on investment (SROI) approach. Evidence was gathered from quantitative data, interviews and a literature review. The analysis examined short-, medium- and long-term effects, and attributed monetary values to social outcomes. Findings – The service provides a return of £6.50 for every £1 invested. The analysis established outcomes for service users and long-term impacts on families and children. It illustrated how these services are important in achieving more appropriate service responses, providing value for money to the NHS. Findings also relate to the definition of “social value” and “value for money”. Research limitations/implications – There is no common accepted method for identifying financial values for a number of the benefits identified in this analysis. By being transparent in how the analysis was carried out, the paper encourages further critical thinking in this area. Practical implications – Engaging commissioners in this type of analysis may assist them in the use of economic evaluation that includes social values as an input to decision making. Originality/value – The paper contributes to the understanding of “social value” and “value for money” in the context of public services. This is of importance given that the Social Value Act and “Open Public Services” reform are being implemented in the UK.

scholarly journals Social value of maintaining baby-friendly hospital initiative accreditation in Australia: case study

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andini Pramono ◽  
Julie Smith ◽  
Jane Desborough ◽  
Siobhan Bourke
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Public Hospital ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Maternity Unit ◽  
Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative ◽  
Maternity Services ◽  
Social Return On Investment ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background Breastfeeding has positive impacts on the health, environment, and economic wealth of families and countries. The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) in 1991 as a global program to incentivize maternity services to implement the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding (Ten Steps). These were developed to ensure that maternity services remove barriers for mothers and families to successfully initiate breastfeeding and to continue breastfeeding through referral to community support after hospital discharge. While more than three in four births in Australia take place in public hospitals, in 2020 only 26% of Australian hospitals were BFHI-accredited. So what is the social return to investing in BFHI accreditation in Australia, and does it incentivize BFHI accreditation? This study aimed to examine the social value of maintaining the BFHI accreditation in one public maternity unit in Australia using the Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework. This novel method was developed in 2000 and measures social, environmental and economic outcomes of change using monetary values. Method The study was non-experimental and was conducted in the maternity unit of Calvary Public Hospital, Canberra, an Australian BFHI-accredited public hospital with around 1000 births annually. This facility provided an opportunity to illustrate costs for maintaining BFHI accreditation in a relatively affluent urban population. Stakeholders considered within scope of the study were the mother-baby dyad and the maternity facility. We interviewed the hospital’s Director of Maternity Services and the Clinical Midwifery Educator, guided by a structured questionnaire, which examined the cost (financial, time and other resources) and benefits of each of the Ten Steps. Analysis was informed by the Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework, which consists of mapping the stakeholders, identifying and valuing outcomes, establishing impact, calculating the ratio and conducting sensitivity analysis. This information was supplemented with micro costing studies from the literature that measure the benefits of the BFHI. Results The social return from the BFHI in this facility was calculated to be AU$ 1,375,050. The total investment required was AU$ 24,433 per year. Therefore, the SROI ratio was approximately AU$ 55:1 (sensitivity analysis: AU$ 16–112), which meant that every AU$1 invested in maintaining BFHI accreditation by this maternal and newborn care facility generated approximately AU$55 of benefit. Conclusions Scaled up nationally, the BFHI could provide important benefits to the Australian health system and national economy. In this public hospital, the BFHI produced social value greater than the cost of investment, providing new evidence of its effectiveness and economic gains as a public health intervention. Our findings using a novel tool to calculate the social rate of return, indicate that the BHFI accreditation is an investment in the health and wellbeing of families, communities and the Australian economy, as well as in health equity.

scholarly journals Social Return on Investment Analysis of the Health Precinct Community Hub for Chronic Conditions

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (14) ◽  
pp. 5249
Author(s):  
Carys Jones ◽  
Ned Hartfiel ◽  
Paul Brocklehurst ◽  
Mary Lynch ◽  
Rhiannon Tudor Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Family Members ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Social Return On Investment ◽  
North Wales ◽  
The Social

Local governments and Health Boards are seeking to develop integrated services to promote well-being. Social participation and physical activity are key in promoting well-being for older people. The Health Precinct is a community hub in North Wales that people with chronic conditions are referred to through social prescribing. To improve community-based assets there is a need to understand and evidence the social value they generate. Data collection took place October 2017–September 2019. Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis was used to evaluate the Health Precinct. Stakeholders included participants aged 55+, participants’ families, staff, the National Health Service and local government. Participants’ health and well-being data were collected upon referral and four months later using the EQ-5D-5L, Campaign to End Loneliness Scale and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Family members completed questionnaires at four months. Baseline data were collected for 159 participants. Follow-up data were available for 66 participants and 38 family members. The value of inputs was £55,389 (attendance fees, staffing, equipment, overheads), and the value of resulting benefits was £281,010; leading to a base case SROI ratio of £5.07 of social value generated for every £1 invested. Sensitivity analysis yielded estimates of between 2.60:1 and 5.16:1.

scholarly journals Social Value of Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative Implementation in Australia: Case Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andini Pramono ◽  
Julie Smith ◽  
Jane Desborough ◽  
Siobhan Bourke
Keyword(s):  
Return On Investment ◽  
Public Hospital ◽  
Social Value ◽  
World Health ◽  
Maternity Unit ◽  
Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative ◽  
Maternity Services ◽  
Social Return On Investment ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Cost

Abstract BackgroundBreastfeeding has positive impacts on the health, environment, and economic wealth of families and countries. Nevertheless, barriers to accessing high-quality breastfeeding support are evident in the low global exclusive breastfeeding rate of 41%. The World Health Organization (WHO) launched the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI) in 1991 as a global program to incentivize maternity services to implement the Ten Steps to Successful Breastfeeding (Ten Steps). These were developed to ensure that maternity services remove barriers for mothers and families to successfully initiate breastfeeding and to continue breastfeeding through referral to community support after hospital discharge. However, in 2020 only 26% of Australian hospitals were BFHI-accredited. This study aimed to examine the social return on investment (SROI) of implementing the BFHI in one public maternity unit in Australia.MethodThe study was non-experimental and conducted in the maternity unit of an Australian BFHI-accredited public hospital with around 1000 births annually. This facility illustrated costs for BFHI implementation in a relatively affluent urban population, and more than three in four births in Australia take place in public hospitals. Stakeholders considered within scope of the study were the mother-baby dyad and the maternity facility. We interviewed the hospital’s Director of Maternity Services and the Clinical Midwifery Educator, guided by a structured questionnaire, which examined the cost (financial, time and other resources) and benefits of each of the Ten Steps. Analysis was informed by the Social Return on Investment (SROI) framework, which uses monetary values to measure social, environmental and economic outcomes of change. This information was supplemented with micro costing studies from the literature that measure the benefits of the BFHI. ResultsThe social return from the BFHI initiative in this facility was calculated to be AU$ 1,398,140. The total investment required was AU$ 24,433 per year. Therefore, the SROI ratio was approximately AU$ 55:1 (sensitivity analysis: AU$ 16-112), which meant that every AU$1 invested in BFHI implementation by this maternal and newborn care facility generated approximately AU$55 of benefit. ConclusionsScaled up nationally, the BFHI could provide important benefits to the Australian health system and national economy. In this public hospital, the BFHI produced social value greater than the cost of investment, providing new evidence of its effectiveness and economic gains as a public health intervention. Our findings using a novel tool to calculate the social rate of return, indicate that implementation of the BHFI is an investment in the health and wellbeing of families, communities and the Australian economy, as well as in health equity.

scholarly journals Adding value to the use of Health Impact Assessment and social return on investment technologies

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Green ◽  
K Ashton ◽  
M Dyakova ◽  
L Parry-Williams
Keyword(s):  
Impact Assessment ◽  
Return On Investment ◽  
Health Impact Assessment ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Health Impact ◽  
Social Value ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Social Return On Investment ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Social Return on Investment (SROI) are beneficial public health methodologies that assess potential effects on health including social, economic and environmental factors and have synergies in their approaches. This paper explores how HIA and SROI can complement each other to capture and account for the impact and social value of an assessed intervention or policy. A scoping review of academic and grey literature was undertaken to identify case studies published between January 1996 and April 2019 where HIA and SROI methods have been used to complement each other. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with nine international experts from a range of regulatory/legislative contexts to gain a better understanding of past experiences and expertise of both HIA and SROI. A thematic analysis was undertaken on the data collected. The review identified two published reports which outline when HIA and SROI have both been used to assess the same intervention. Interview results suggest that both methods have strengths as standalone processes i.e. HIAs are well-structured in their approach, assessing health in its broadest context and SROI can add value by monetizing social value as well as capturing social/environmental impact. Similarities of the two methods were identified i.e. a strong emphasis on stakeholder engagement and common shared principles. When questioned how the two methods could complement each other in practice, the results indicate the benefits of using HIA to explore initial impact, and as a platform on which to build SROI to monetarize social value. HIA and SROI methodologies have cross-over. The research suggests potential benefits when used in tandem or combining the methods to assess impact and account for health and social value. Innovative work is now being carried out in Wales to understand the implications of this in practice and to understand how the results of the two methods could be used by decision-makers. Key messages HIA and SROI methods can be used in tandem to capture both the health impact and social value of policies and proposed interventions. HIA and SROI when used together can provide valuable information to inform decision makers around the health impact and social value of proposed policies and interventions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document