No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Zahlen und Geschichten - SROI als Umwertungstechnik im Sozialsektor
... The debates on social investment bonds and attempts to document professional quality through the financial disclosure of a social return on investment may often have an odd or amusing character in particular individual cases. However, they bear evidence of a considerably changed (cognitive) embedding of personalized social services and determination of their performance (Ziegler & Wohlfarth 2019). This is reinforced by the fact that personal social services are easily commodified compared to other welfare measures. ...
Welfare states are subject to constant change. Societal and political changes in recent decades have made social services increasingly crucial in the provision of welfare. Such conversions in the welfare architecture are not remaining without implications for the citizens concerned.
This article illustrates the importance of social services in the context of current social investment strategies. It outlines a program of new challenges, pitfalls and opportunities for the effective realization of welfare citizenship in a service-based welfare architecture by contextualizing sui-generis characteristics of social services in the area of tension between democratic demands and current forms of welfare architecture and provision.
Available:
https://ejournals.bib.uni-wuppertal.de/index.php/sws/article/view/634/1213
Im Gegensatz zu früheren Wohlfahrtsstaatsarrangements kann gegenwärtig von einem Verbannen Sozialer Arbeit in die sozialstaatliche Peripherie nicht mehr die Rede sein. Dabei geraten weite gesellschaftliche Handlungsfelder in den Fokus des neuen pädagogischen Wohlfahrtsstaats. Wir schlagen eine Deutung der Zunahme Sozialer Arbeit – genauer personalisierter sozialer Dienstleistungen – vor dem Hintergrund veränderter sozialstaatlicher Rationalitäten vor, in denen neue Auffassungen sozialer Rechte und staatlichen Handelns angelegt sind. Dabei bleibt die sozialpädagogische Kernfrage einer demokratischen Sicherung von Welfare Citizenship – die sich in den abzeichnenden Welfare Service States verschärft – in der disziplinären Debatte bisher nicht nur ungelöst sondern weitgehend ungestellt.
Die Forderung nach Wirkungsorientierung und die steigende Notwendigkeit zum Nachweis der Wirksamkeit sozialarbeiterischer Interventionen verlangen der Sozialen Arbeit mehr Transparenz nach außen ab. Aus neoinstitutionalistischer Perspektive lässt sich erkennen, dass infolge der Institutionalisierung von wirkungsorientierter Steuerung im Feld der Sozialen Arbeit bisherige Mechanismen des Widerspruchsmanagements in den leistungserbringenden Organisationen tendenziell außer Kraft gesetzt werden. Dadurch sind auch Veränderungen auf Ebene der direkten KlientInnenarbeit zu erwarten, wobei großteils noch offen ist, wie diese konkret aussehen. Hierfür ist nicht nur von Bedeutung, wie sich im gegenwärtigen Aushandlungsprozess die fördergebenden Stellen der öffentlichen Hand positionieren, sondern auch, welche Gestaltungspotenziale und Legitimationsstrategien die Organisations- und Professionsebene zu erschließen verstehen.
The demand for impact assessment and the rising need to prove the effectiveness of social-work interventions require social work to become more transparent to the outside world. From a neoinstitutional perspective it becomes clear that there is a tendency to suspend the mechanisms of contradiction management which service providers have used until now. It is therefore to be expected that this will lead to changes in the direct interaction with clients; what these changes will look like still remains to be seen. In this context it is not only important how the public funding bodies will position themselves in the present negotiation process, but also which potentials for development and which strategies of legitimation the service providers will be able to open up at the organizational and professional level.
Increased scarcity of public resources has led to a concomitant drive to account for value-for-money of interventions. Traditionally, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses have been used to assess value-for-money of public health interventions. The social return on investment (SROI) methodology has capacity to measure broader socio-economic outcomes, analysing and computing views of multiple stakeholders in a singular monetary ratio. This review provides an overview of SROI application in public health, explores lessons learnt from previous studies and makes recommendations for future SROI application in public health.
A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature to identify SROI studies published between January 1996 and December 2014 was conducted. All articles describing conduct of public health SROI studies and which reported a SROI ratio were included. An existing 12-point framework was used to assess study quality. Data were extracted using pre-developed codes: SROI type, type of commissioning organisation, study country, public health area in which SROI was conducted, stakeholders included in study, discount rate used, SROI ratio obtained, time horizon of analysis and reported lessons learnt.
40 SROI studies, of varying quality, including 33 from high-income countries and 7 from low middle-income countries, met the inclusion criteria. SROI application increased since its first use in 2005 until 2011, declining afterwards. SROI has been applied across different public health areas including health promotion (12 studies), mental health (11), sexual and reproductive health (6), child health (4), nutrition (3), healthcare management (2), health education and environmental health (1 each). Qualitative and quantitative methods have been used to gather information for public health SROI studies. However, there remains a lack of consensus on who to include as beneficiaries, how to account for counterfactual and appropriate study-time horizon. Reported SROI ratios vary widely (1.1:1 to 65:1).
SROI can be applied across healthcare settings. Best practices such as analysis involving only beneficiaries (not all stakeholders), providing justification for discount rates used in models, using purchasing power parity equivalents for monetary valuations and incorporating objective designs such as case-control or before-and-after designs for accounting for outcomes will improve robustness of public health SROI studies.
This paper outlines the merits of two approaches to social impact measurement that are currently the subject of debate within the third sector: social accounting and audit (SAA) and social return on investment (SROI). Although there are significant similarities between the methods, a number of important differences remain. In particular, while SAA involves a more ‘conventional’ mix of narrative and quantitative disclosures, SROI outcomes are more explicitly quantitative and reductive. This is most evident in the production of the ‘SROI ratio’, which calculates a monetised ‘return’ on a notional £1 of investment. In the UK, with available resources becoming increasingly scarce, the third sector is facing demands for increased accountability as well as being encouraged to ‘scale up’ in preparation for assuming greater responsibility for public service delivery. In this context, it is easy to see why the simplicity and clarity of SROI is attractive to policy-makers, fundraisers and investors, who are keen to quantify and express social value creation and thus make comparative assessments of social value. However, this apparent simplicity also risks reducing the measurement of social impact to a potentially meaningless or even misleading headline figure and should therefore be treated with caution. This is especially so where exact measures are unobtainable, and approximations, or so-called ‘financial proxies’, are used. The use of such proxies is highly subjective, especially when dealing with ‘softer’ outcomes. There is nothing to prevent SROI being used within an SAA framework: indeed, a greater emphasis on quantitative data could improve many social accounts. Nevertheless, we conclude that current efforts to promote SROI adoption, to the likely detriment of SAA, may ultimately promote a one-dimensional funder- and investor-driven approach to social impact measurement in the third sector.
Although it is evident in routine decision-making and a crucial vehicle of rationalization, commensuration as a general social process has been given little consideration by sociologists. This article defines commensuration as the comparison of different entities according to a common metric, notes commensuration's long history as an instrument of social thought, analyzes commensuration as a mode of power, and discusses the cognitive and political stakes inherent in calling something incommensurable. We provide a framework for future empirical study of commensuration and demonstrate how this analytic focus can inform established fields of sociological inquiry.
Die Freie Wohlfahrtspflege in Deutschland ist ein in Europa einzigartiges Konstrukt. Sie ist einer der größten Arbeitgeber in Deutschland und verfügt bei oberflächlicher Betrachtung über eine Marktmacht, die insbesondere aus der überragenden Stellung der kirchlichen Verbände im Dienstleistungssektor resultiert. Gleichwohl ist diese starke Positionierung am Markt sozialer Dienste kein Garant für den sozialpolitischen Einfluss der Verbände.
The Ambitions and Challenges of SROI
- M Arvidson
- F Lyon
- S Mckay
- D Moro
Arvidson, M./Lyon, F./McKay, S./Moro, D., 2010: The
Ambitions and Challenges of SROI. Southampton:
Third Seetor Research (entre
Arvidson, M./Lyon, F./MacKay, S./Moro, D., 2013: Valuing
the Social? The nature and controversies of measuring Social Return on Investment (SROI). In: Voluntary
Seetor Review, 4, 1: 3-18
The return of social government: From >socialist calculation< to >social analytics<
- M Costa
Costa, M., 2017: Social return on investment (SROI),
including elements on cost-benefit analysis. In Greve, B. (Hg.): Handbook of social policy evaluation.
Cheltenham
Davies, W., 2015: The return of social government: From
>socialist calculation< to >social analytics<. In: European Journal ofSocial Theory, 18, 4: 431-450
2013: Between )>Quantitative« and »Qualitative« Analysis
- W Davies
Davies, W., 2016: The Limits of Neoliberalism. London
deLarminat, P., 2013: Between )>Quantitative« and »Qualitative« Analysis. In: L'Annee Sociologique, 63: 77-105
A sociology of quantification
- W Espe Land
- M Stevens
Espe land W./Stevens M., 2008: A sociology of quantification. In: European Journal ofSociology, 49: 401-436
2012: Les pouvoirs de valorisation
- F Ard-Duvernay
ard-Duvernay, F., 2012: Les pouvoirs de valorisation.
The seven principle problems ofSROI
- S Fischer
- M Stanak
Fischer, S./Stanak, M., 2017: Social Return on Investment:
outcomes, Methods and Economic Parameters. LBI-HTA. Projektbericht Nr. 96. Wien
Fujiwara, D., 2015: The seven principle problems ofSROI.
London
The economics and econometrics of active labor markets
- J Heckman
- R Latonde
- J Smith
Heckman, J./Latonde, R./Smith, J., 1999: The economics and econometrics of active labor markets. In:
Ashenfe!ter, 0./Card, D. (Hg.): Handbook of labor
economics. Amsterdam
Evaluating public policies or measuringthe performance ofpublic services
- L Held
- K Oxford Homann
Held, L., 2008: Methoden der statistischen Inferenz.
likelihood und Bayes. Heidelberg
Hemerijck, A. (Hg.), 2017: Uses of social investment.
Oxford
Homann, K., 2007: Moral und ökonomisches Gesetz. In:
Streeck, W./Beckert, J. (Hg.): Moralische Voraussetzungen und Grenzen wirtschaftlichen Handelns. Köln
Jany-Catrice, F., 2016: Evaluating public policies or measuringthe performance ofpublic services? In: Bruno 1./
2018: ls ltworth lt? How to measure social return on investment
- M Lindgaard
- P Thorgaard
- M Wiene
Lindgaard, M./Thorgaard, P./Wiene, M., 2018: ls ltworth
lt? How to measure social return on investment.
Kopenhagen
lindgreen, A./Hirsch, B./Vallaster, C./Yousafzai, S. (Hg.),
2018: Measuring and Controlling Sustainability:
Spanning Theory and Practice. New York
Luke, B./Barraket, J./Eversole, R. 2013: Measurement
as Legitimacy Versus Legitimacy of Measures. In:
Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management
10, 3/4; 234-258
Expertise Kosten und Nutzen Früher Hilfen. Eine l<osten-Nutzen-Analyse im Projekt >Guter Start ins Kinderleben<
- U Maier-Gräwe
- Wagenknecht
Maier-Gräwe, U./Wagenknecht, 1., 2011: Expertise Kosten
und Nutzen Früher Hilfen. Eine l<osten-Nutzen-Analyse im Projekt >Guter Start ins Kinderleben<. Köln:
Nationales Zentrum Frühe Hilfen
Marti, E./Gond, J.-P., 2018: When Do Theories Become
Self-Fulfilling? Exploringthe Boundary Conditions of
Performativity. In: Academy of Management Review;
Zur Wirksamkeit präventiver Früher Hilfen in Deutschland -ein systematisches Review und eine Metaanalyse
Taubner 5./Munder, Th./Unger, A./Wolter, 5., 2013: Zur
Wirksamkeit präventiver Früher Hilfen in Deutschland
-ein systematisches Review und eine Metaanalyse.
In: Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 62, 8: 598-619
What's So Social About Social Return on Investment?
- P Vik
Vik, P., 2017: What's So Social About Social Return on
Investment? In: Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 37: 6-17