CALCULATING THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE VOLUME PROJECT …€¦ · Sosped Foundation in Finland was founded in 1984 and is today working with several target groups by providing and developing

Voimaa Luovista Menetelmistä

Strength from Creative Methods

CALCULATING THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE VOLUME PROJECT IN 2014

Veli-Pekka Sinervuo, Miikka Vuorinen & Juha KlemeläSosped FoundationDecember 2015 ISBN 978-952-93-6588-3

Voimaa Luovista Menetelmistä —

Strength from Creative Methods

CALCULATING THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE VOLUME PROJECT IN 2014

Sinervuo, Veli-Pekka & Vuorinen, Miikka & Klemelä, Juha Sosped Foundation November 2015

SROI evaluation of the VOLUME project 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Evaluating the VOLUME Project

This report provides an evaluative Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis of the Voimaa Luovista Menetelmistä(VOLUME) project in the Finnish municipality of Kerava during the year 2014. VOLUME (in English: Strength from Creative Methods) was a low threshold workshop for socially excluded, unemployed young people. SROI is a method for calculating and reporting social value produced by organizations and projects.

These are times of high youth unemployment in Finland. Many unemployed young persons also suffer from problems of mental health. There is a growing demand for low threshold day centers and peer groups. Fear of social situations, bad daily rhythm and substance misuse often make it difficult for the target group youth to engage in traditional day centers or workshops. Many have also interrupted their primary or secondary education and have never worked in their lives. For these reasons future doors appear closed for them and they stay at home – some for months and some stay for years.

VOLUME project was a part of a youth workshop JENGA. Both activities were organized by the youth services of the munic-ipality of Kerava, Finland. VOLUME served the client group of unemployed young adults (17-25 years) who have problems in working in a traditional workshop. Many of them struggle with social fears and a lack of central life skills. They need a place that provides social empowerment and individual coaching. During the year 2014 a total of 38 young people took part in the activities of VOLUME.

The VOLUME project, financed by the European Social Fund and the municipality of Kerava, is a typical example of the new kind of low threshold places that train both living and working skills. These kinds of activities are becoming more and more popular in Finland but there is not much knowledge about the impact of these activities for the participants and for the society. Therefore we decided to do an evaluation of VOLUME. As a method we used Social Return on Investment, i.e., SROI. With SROI it is possible to measure both social, economic and environmental impacts that an activity has for the society. SROI pro-vides an internationally recognized framework for measuring the benefits of an activity and giving them a financial value. To collect the data we interviewed both the participants of VOLUME and also other relevant stakeholders.

Outcomes and ImpactsThe results of our inquiry indicated that the VOLUME activities had a clear impact on the participants´ lives. There were posi-tive outcomes for also several other relevant stakeholders. The key outcomes for the young people were

- enhanced mental health and sense of energy,- better social skills and relations,- reduced addictive behavior (drugs, alcohol and computer) and- a more normal daily rhythm.

In a follow up query made by the VOLUME (conducted in May 2015) it was found out that one former participant was em-ployed by an outside party and three by JENGA. Three young people were studying for a vocation, five attended activities in the workshop JENGA, and one participated in volunteer work. These can be considered as achievements: when the participants entered the VOLUME, they were in rather “a bad shape” as regards their abilities and future orientations. Nine of the former VOLUME participants have continued in the new VOLUME +6dB project that is a continuation of the earlier project. On the other hand, during the VOLUME project in 2014 seven participants had interrupted their participation for different reasons.

SROI evaluation of the VOLUME project4

These and other outcomes were analyzed and some of them were monetized, i.e. translated to monetary values in order to mea-sure the financial benefit of the activities and to define a SROI ratio. The SROI ratio is the amount of benefits produced by the project divided by its costs.

VOLUME project was in operation between 1.1.2014 and 28.2.2015. This SROI analysis is restricted to the full calendar year, 1.1.-31.12.2014. VOLUME´s budget during the actual project time period (1.1.2014–28.2.2015) was 132 212 € and therefore, on purely computational terms, between 1.1.2014–31.12.2014 the budget was about 113 325 € . The total social benefit for VOLUME, as calculated in the report at hand, was 148 500 €. Therefore the SROI ratio (the ratio of benefits to costs) estimated for VOLUME project during the year 2014 is about 1,31:1. This means that for each euro invested 1,31 euros worth of social value was produced. In sensitivity analysis the possible SROI values ranged from 1,21 € to 1,7 € for every 1 € invested.

The calculations in this report respect the principles of prudence. We have tried to rather underestimate than overestimate bene-fits and instead of making assumptions we have tried, to the extent possible, to base our calculations and valuations on the actual numbers. The now financially evaluated impact is just a part of the full benefits of the VOLUME. Besides what could be credibly monetized, the project produced a multiplicity of positive impacts to the participants’ daily rhythm and everyday skills, social life, motivation and orientation to future, and to the other stakeholders that were affected by the VOLUME project.

The report is available on the internet at the web pages of the Sosped Foundation: www.sosped.fi/en/.

The Evaluating Organization: Sosped FoundationSosped Foundation in Finland was founded in 1984 and is today working with several target groups by providing and developing peer support. The name “Sosped” originally derives from the words “social pedagogical”, which is a discipline of holistic pedago-gy and care. The activities of the Foundation are financed by Finland’s slot machine association (RAY).

PROJECT (VOLUME) CONTACT INFORMATION:

Eija KauniskangasE-mail: [email protected] RantakangasE-mail: [email protected]

VOLUMEWebsite:http://www.keravannuorisopalvelut.fi /tilat/jenga/

Addr.Santaniitynkatu 104250 KERAVAFINLAND

EVALUATOR (SOSPED FOUNDATION) CONTACT INFORMATION:

Veli-Pekka SinervuoE-mail: [email protected] VuorinenE-mail: [email protected]

Sosped FoundationWebsite: www.sosped.fi/en/

Addr. Elimäenkatu 25–2700510 HELSINKIFINLAND


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 31. INTRODUCTION: SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND THE VOLUME PROJECT ............ 7

1.1. Social Exclusion Among Young People ...........................................................................................................................71.2. The Role of the VOLUME Project as a Low Threshold Place .........................................................................................71.3. Financing VOLUME .....................................................................................................................................................8

2. THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT APPROACH .................................. 92.1. What is SROI .................................................................................................................................................................92.2. The Seven Principles of SROI .......................................................................................................................................102.3. How the Analysis Proceeds: the Steps of SROI .............................................................................................................11

3. SCOPE AND STAKEHOLDERS ................................................................................ 123.1. Selecting the Scope .......................................................................................................................................................123.2. Identifying Stakeholders and Collecting Data ...............................................................................................................12

4. OUTCOMES AND EVIDENCE ................................................................................. 154.1. Stakeholder Inputs and Outputs ...................................................................................................................................164.2. Description of the Outcomes and the Indicators ..........................................................................................................194.3. Negative Outcomes ......................................................................................................................................................254.4. Duration of Change .....................................................................................................................................................254.5. Analysis of the Investment ............................................................................................................................................264.6. Financial Proxies and Outcome Valuation ....................................................................................................................264.7. Impact Map .................................................................................................................................................................33

5. ESTABLISHING IMPACT ............................................................................................. 345.1. Deadweight ..................................................................................................................................................................345.2. Displacement ...............................................................................................................................................................355.3. Attribution ...................................................................................................................................................................365.4. Total Impact .................................................................................................................................................................37

6. CALCULATING THE SOCIAL VALUE .................................................................... 386.1. Calculation of the Social Return on Investment ...........................................................................................................386.2. Sensitivity Analysis .......................................................................................................................................................38

7. CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................. 40LITERATURE .................................................................................................................... 42APPENDIX: IMPACT MAP .................................................................................43


1. INTRODUCTION: SOCIAL EXCLU-SION AND THE VOLUME PROJECT

1.1. Social Exclusion Among Young PeopleThe social exclusion of young people has during the past years been a much discussed theme. By the socially excluded we refer broadly to young people who are not working or in student life and who don´t have other education than primary school. Ac-cording to the employment statistics of 2013 there were in Finland about 45 000 young people of the age 16–29, who did not go to work or attend secondary education.

Social exclusion is a wide-ranging phenomenon. The concept refers to a broad psychic-material problem complex and ending up being outside of the daily routines and rhythm of the society, even drug problems and criminality. There may be a lack of per-sonal support network, fear of social situations and a minimal working and study experience. The youth may find it hard to start studying or to go to work and due to their vulnerability the employers and authorities can have problems in working with them and helping them. It has been shown that the public social services often have problems to meet the needs of these young people.

These youth were the primary target group of the VOLUME project. Many of the project´s participants struggle with fear of social situations, have problems with their daily rhythm and often find it hard to engage in normal workshop activities. The majority of them had been staying at home between 6 and 36 months without any regular activities outside of the home. Use of the public social services was common and they interacted regularly with several service providers.

1.2. The Role of the VOLUME Project as a Low Threshold PlaceVOLUME project in the municipality of Kerava, Finland, offered low threshold activities for young adults (17-25 years old) who are not employed or in education. The project used a diversity of methods to ensure a fast, preventive and timely interven-tion to young people´s problems with health and life skills, problems which are slowing down their access to working life and studies. The name, “VOLUME” is an acronym from the Finnish words “VOimaa LUovista MEnetelmistä” (Strength from Cre-ative Methods). The daily activities in VOLUME consisted of normal household tasks, one-to-one conversations with coaches, workshops in applied theatre, handicrafts, visual arts, story telling and multimedia and visits to work places. Also different areas of life management skills were dealt with both in individual meetings with the personnel and meetings together with the other participants. The activities were organized with two coaches who worked full time and one coordinator who was working part time. The VOLUME project was tightly linked to a permanent workshop JENGA. Both were coordinated by the youth services of the municipality of Kerava. The JENGA workshop offers a place for young people to learn life skills, to grow into adulthood and to get hands-on experience of work, encouraging and helping them to seek further training. There is an opportunity for guided and supported work, and a tailored path to education. Also, the participants are supported to finish their education in co-operation with education providers, or to become employed in the open labor market.

In JENGA the participants can choose from five workshops. The workshops are:

1) woodwork workshop, 2) textile workshop,3) second hand shop, 4) studio Soundcage and 5) media center Mekka.


The difference between the JENGA and VOLUME is that the latter provided a stepping-stone for young persons who find it too challenging to participate in JENGA´s activities. Both projects were located in the same property, but VOLUME had their own premises (about 100 m2). The personnel of both activities belonged to the same work group and the participating young people of VOLUME and JENGA were also interacting daily with one another. Two weekly workshop days were included into regular VOLUME weeks and it is normal that the participants could change between the VOLUME and JENGA workshop activities according to their own strengths and interests.

Both places were free for the participants and open between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m.

During the 2014 calendar year 38 young participants were involved in the VOLUME project (41 participants during 1.1.2014–28.2.2015, which was the VOLUME:s whole financed period). Of the 38 participants, 25 were male and 13 female. Their average age was 21.5, and age range from 17 to 29. All participants were unemployed.

1.3. Financing VOLUMEVolume project was an exceptional part of Kerava´s youth services, because it was mostly financed by European Social Fund. The European Social Fund granted a sum of 99 159 € for VOLUME and for the calendar year 2014. This was 75% of the funding. 25% (33 053 €) of the money came from the municipality of Kerava and the total budget for VOLUME was therefore 132 212 €. Most of this money was used to the salaries of the two coaches and to pay for the premises and the equipment necessary (rent, furniture´s, computers, etc.). With this sum the project ran from 1.1.2014 to 28.2.2015. In December 2014 VOLUME received a grant for about two more years, starting from 1.3.2015. VOLUME continued with the name VOLUME +6Db.

VOLUME stops young people from getting socially excluded. There is a place from where you won´t get

thrown out if you get some problems.

- Participant -

2. THE SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT APPROACH 2.1. What is SROIWhat we do — our daily actions and activities — is a source of value. Value is both created and destroyed. In order to get a comprehensive and balanced understanding of this value, both financial and non-financial aspects need to be taken into account. Social Return on Investment (SROI) is a framework for measuring and accounting for this kind broader concept of value. It seeks to reduce inequality and environmental degradation and improve wellbeing by incorporating social, environmental and economic costs and benefits. This value can be called by the generic term social value. At the heart of SROI analysis there is a story of change. It describes how the value of an activity is created through inputs, out-puts, outcomes and impacts. The social value is calculated as a ratio of benefits to costs with the following formula:

”


When the SROI ratio is, for example, 1.2 (i.e. 1.2:1), we can say that an investment of one euro to a certain activity delivers a social value of 1.2 euros (€).

SROI analysis is based on social accounting and cost–benefit analysis (CBA). CBA is widely used in economical calculations. Whereas CBA focuses merely on monetary aspects, SROI defines social value with the help of both monetary and qualitative data. In general, money is not the main point in SROI analysis, but the emphasis is on the value produced. Money is only a means to make the social value as concrete and understandable as possible.

An important thing in assessing the meaning of the SROI ratio is, that it only includes the benefits that are monetizable. In organizations and projects with social goals outcomes are commonly non-monetizable, or very difficult to monetize. To give a few examples, it would be very hard to put a money value on new friendships, better parent-child relations or enhanced sense of security. Therefore a crucial part of SROI reporting is also to bring out the qualitative benefits.

The stakeholders of the studied activity have an especially important role in the analysis. They provide information and also need to be informed about the results of SROI. SROI has a communicative role, because it gives a voice and access to information for a big range of stakeholders that are closely related to the activity. SROI manages to “translate[…] the social value created into data that can be understood by a range of stakeholders — from those we are trying to influence (investors and policy-makers), to those whose support we want (clients, beneficiaries, local community), to those whose support is integral to the quality of our success (staff)”. There are two kind of SROI analysis:

– Evaluative SROI is conducted retrospectively and the estimation is based on actual outcomes that have already taken place. The SROI report at hand is evaluative.

– Forecast SROI is a prediction of planned outcomes in the case the activity reaches its goals.

SROI is a challenging methodology and it has also been criticized for various reasons. One of the main challenges is the availabil-ity of good evidence about the outcomes of the actual activity. Because of this the involvement of as many relevant stakeholders as possible and using a variety of data collection methods are key factors for a successful assessment.

Notwithstanding obeisance to the SROI rules, in the end the researcher has to do some discretionary choices and decisions re-garding the possible values and consequences in the analysis. If they are not reported openly, SROI and especially the SROI ratio may cause an illusion of false precisions. Besides, according to some critics, doing an SROI assessments is not credible, because reports always seem to provide a favorable ratio. The SROI ratio should be sensibly calculated and interpreted, so that it will not get an overinflated role among the yield of SROI analysis.

2.2. The Seven Principles of SROISeven key principles work as guidelines for the SROI analysis. They are as follows.

1. Involve stakeholdersThe stakeholders are identified and then consulted and kept committed during the evaluation process.

2. Understand what changesThe change produced by the action must be articulated and evidenced.

3. Value the things that matter The outcomes are to be monetized and valued financially to the extent deemed appropriate.

SROI= Value of benefits

Value of investment


4. Only include what is material Materiality means including things, which are relevant and useful for the organization or project being analyzed.

5. Do not over-claimThe activity can only claim for the part of the value that it is truly responsible for creating.

6. Be transparentAll the statements in an SROI analysis must be well explained and documented.

7.Verify the resultVerifying of the results should take place both with the stakeholders and with third part professionals.

2.3. How the Analysis Proceeds: the Steps of SROIThe SROI process can be divided into six stages and they are as follows:

Stage 1: Establishing scope and identifying key stakeholders

The aim and purposes of using SROI analysis in one’s organization, together with the amount of available resources, guide the defining of the scope. Thereafter stakeholders (=those, who affect or are affected by the activity) will be identified and the relevant ones will be included in the analysis.

Stage 2: Mapping outcomes

An impact map divides the process of change into parts and helps to see how every stakeholder influences the change or is influ-enced by it. Investments are the financial values of “inputs”, “outputs” are the concrete ingredients or effects of the activity and “outcomes” are the material, social (or psychological) end results for the participants.

Stage 3: Evidencing outcomes and giving them a value

Evidencing the outcomes begins with the development of reliable outcome indicators. By using proxy values the outcomes are monetized (if appropriate).

Stage 4: Establishing impact

Establishing the impact means studying, which part of the results is due to the activity and which part is due to other factors. Deadweight describes the change that would have happened anyway and displacement describes which other positive outcomes may not have been taken place because of the actual activity. Attribution takes up the fact that besides the activity there may have been other factors (people, activity, time) that have contributed to the outcome.

Stage 5: Calculating the SROI

For the calculation of the SROI, the value of both the benefits and the investments are calculated. After this, the benefits will be divided with the investment to get the SROI ratio. Because the result is only an estimation, it is important to do a sensitivity analysis to define the range of the ratio.

Stage 6: Reporting, using and embedding

The results are made public and they are used for the managing the organization or project and to attain resources.

SROI evaluation of the VOLUME project

10

3. SCOPE AND STAKEHOLDERS3.1. Selecting the ScopeThe VOLUME project started in January 2014 and ended in 28.2.2015. This evaluative SROI studies the outcomes of the proj-ect during a period of one year, from the beginning of January 2014 to the end of December 2014. We realize that this kind of a cut-off is rather artificial in nature, but it was considered rational for reasons of clear and easily comprehensible reporting. A period of one full calendar year is a standard unit of time for all kinds of reporting.

Nevertheless, restricting the time period to one year leaves some of the available data used in the SROI calculations a bit open to interpretations. It is sometimes difficult to assess, how much the period of two months during 2015 has affected the data in especially the interview data but also otherwise. When in doubt we have followed the principle of prudence and made the necessary adjustments to the calculation formulas in order not to overestimate the benefits.

Volume prevents social exclusion. It helps the ones who are ina bad shape to get back to their feet.

- Participant -

3.2. Identifying Stakeholders and Collecting DataA project’s or organization’s stakeholders are those parties, who affect or are affected by it’s activity. Two obvious stakeholder groups in the VOLUME project are the young participants and the everyday organizers of the project’s activities: the coaches. In a meeting with the project coordinator, two coaches and nine participants, other stakeholders were preliminarily identified with the help of workshops methods. Coaches and the participants were asked to draw three different mind maps, one at a time. The first mind map was meant to include the stakeholders (people and organizations) who had influenced the young person to get involved with VOLUME. The next mind map was about the stakeholders of relevance while the participants were in VOLUME and the third map depicted the apparently important stakeholders at the moment the participants leave VOLUME (if “all goes well”). The participants had a chance to discuss in groups of two or three people, but everybody drew their own mind maps. The two coaches also drew mind maps from the perspective of the young adults in VOLUME.

After the workshop the participants held a presentation, where they told about the impact that the activities had had for their lives. The presentation was both a way to engage the young adults and also a method to help them to experience rapport with the researchers in the upcoming interview. After the presentation we ended up the day with a group interview. The interview con-sisted mainly of questions concerning the outcomes: how the participants experienced that the activities had influenced them. The two coaches were present in the interview and all the nine participants were involved in the interviews.

During the workshop day the responsible instructor of JENGA and the project coordinator of VOLUME (who was also the secretary of youth services in the municipality of Kerava) were also interviewed on a one-to-one basis.

About two weeks after the group interview we did structured one-to-one interviews with seven young adults. Also the two VOLUME coaches were interviewed. The interview guides for both personnel and participants were based on the first day´s materials (11 mind maps, PowerPoint presentations of the youth and the group interview). The participants’ guides were actually survey questionnaires that the interviewer and the interviewee filled in while discussing the questions. Questions about personal situation, health, substance use, financial status, daily rhythm and activities, social contacts and so on were asked. After these

interviews we were able to separate the key stakeholders from less relevant stakeholders. The included stakeholders where the ones, who had experienced significant change as a result of VOLUME´s activities or who had a profound impact on VOL-

UME and it’s participants. The 14 following stakeholders were preliminarily included in the analysis.

”


The following stakeholders were excluded from the analysis:


14

STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDED IN THE SROI ANALYSIS

RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION

Young adults i.e. participants The activities were directed for these people. Friends and family They have a regular relationship with the youth. VOLUME coaches They were responsible for the activities. JENGA – a big workshop for young unemployed people that VOLUME was a part of

Daily interaction with the youth and personnel of the VOLUME. Also shared activities.

Outreach youth worker

Regular cooperation, many of the participants were directed to VOLUME by the outreach youth worker. Works in tight cooperation with TE-office, social workers and unit of employment.

Metsola: municipal center of substance and mental health treatment

Cooperation with the VOLUME, both sent and received participants.

TE-office (public employment and business services)

All the participants entering VOLUME were unemployed and required to be clients of TE-office in order to participate to VOLUME´s activities.

Psychiatric policlinic (HUS –Tikkurila)

Some of the participants had received psychiatric help.

The Hospital of Peijas – unit of inpatient psychiatric ward

One of the interviewed participants had formerly received treatment at the inpatient ward at the hospital.

Municipal unit of employment (kunnallinen työllisyysyksikkö)

Directs young people to VOLUME.

The Youth Substance Stop (Nuorten Päihdepysäkki)

Provides substance abuse education, drug tests and psychiatric help.

European Social Fund Provided funding for VOLUME. The municipality of Kerava social services and youth services.

Both are in active cooperation with VOLUME, Sieppari and TE-office. VOLUME is part of Kerava’s youth services, which provided part of the funding for VOLUME.


STAKEHOLDERS EXCLUDED FROM THE SROI ANALYSIS

RATIONALE FOR EXCLUSION

Kela (an independent social insurance institution supervised by the state)

Most of the participants received support from Kela, but not included in order to avoid double counting with the social services.

Cooperation partners (theatre, library, bakeries)

Important, but the influence was not that significant.

Purchase of services (courses of drama & first aid, hygiene passport, etc.)

Important for the youth, but these services were not part of the main activities.

Schools and universities

The schools would in an optimal case receive new students from the project. Local schools can also send trainees to VOLUME. These actions in relation to VOLUME were not deemed material for schools.

Having chosen the most relevant other stakeholders (“other” meaning “besides participants”) we interviewed representants from most of them on a one-to-one basis. (The JENGA instructor and the VOLUME coordinator, who also was the secretary in Kerava’s youth services, had already


14

STAKEHOLDERS INCLUDED IN THE SROI ANALYSIS

RATIONALE FOR INCLUSION

Young adults i.e. participants The activities were directed for these people. Friends and family They have a regular relationship with the youth. VOLUME coaches They were responsible for the activities. JENGA – a big workshop for young unemployed people that VOLUME was a part of

Daily interaction with the youth and personnel of the VOLUME. Also shared activities.

Outreach youth worker

Regular cooperation, many of the participants were directed to VOLUME by the outreach youth worker. Works in tight cooperation with TE-office, social workers and unit of employment.

Metsola: municipal center of substance and mental health treatment

Cooperation with the VOLUME, both sent and received participants.

TE-office (public employment and business services)

All the participants entering VOLUME were unemployed and required to be clients of TE-office in order to participate to VOLUME´s activities.

Psychiatric policlinic (HUS –Tikkurila)

Some of the participants had received psychiatric help.

The Hospital of Peijas – unit of inpatient psychiatric ward

One of the interviewed participants had formerly received treatment at the inpatient ward at the hospital.

Municipal unit of employment (kunnallinen työllisyysyksikkö)

Directs young people to VOLUME.

The Youth Substance Stop (Nuorten Päihdepysäkki)

Provides substance abuse education, drug tests and psychiatric help.

European Social Fund Provided funding for VOLUME. The municipality of Kerava social services and youth services.

Both are in active cooperation with VOLUME, Sieppari and TE-office. VOLUME is part of Kerava’s youth services, which provided part of the funding for VOLUME.


STAKEHOLDERS EXCLUDED FROM THE SROI ANALYSIS

RATIONALE FOR EXCLUSION

Kela (an independent social insurance institution supervised by the state)

Most of the participants received support from Kela, but not included in order to avoid double counting with the social services.

Cooperation partners (theatre, library, bakeries)

Important, but the influence was not that significant.

Purchase of services (courses of drama & first aid, hygiene passport, etc.)

Important for the youth, but these services were not part of the main activities.

Schools and universities

The schools would in an optimal case receive new students from the project. Local schools can also send trainees to VOLUME. These actions in relation to VOLUME were not deemed material for schools.

Having chosen the most relevant other stakeholders (“other” meaning “besides participants”) we interviewed representants from most of them on a one-to-one basis. (The JENGA instructor and the VOLUME coordinator, who also was the secretary in Kerava’s youth services, had already


12

Having chosen the most relevant other stakeholders (“other” meaning “besides participants”) we interviewed representants from most of them on a one-to-one basis. (The JENGA instructor and the VOLUME coordinator, who also was the secretary in Kerava’s youth services, had already been interviewed.) As for these other stakeholders a total of 13 professionals were therefore interviewed, all included. Friends and family members of the participants were not interviewed because we wanted to respect the individual confidentiality of both the participants and their close ones. Also the staff in the hospital of Peijas was excluded, because it was thought that any necessary information about the hospital could be obtained from elsewhere (coaches, partici-pants and the psychiatric policlinic) – afterwards we felt, that Peijas maybe should have been included anyhow to verify the other respondents words. No representatives of the European Social Fund (ESR) were also included because the role of ESR was only to provide money for the operations.

The stakeholder interviews were held between February and April in 2015. In the interviews questions about the meaning and effect of the VOLUME project during the year 2014 were asked. The same interview guide was used in all interviews though small changes were made depending on the stakeholder. The interviews lasted between 45 and 85 minutes and they were all recorded and transcribed. The respondents were interviewed in their offices and often in the same premises were they meet the young people. The following table includes some details about the interviews.

”


15

been interviewed.) As for these other stakeholders a total of 13 professionals were therefore interviewed, all included. Friends and family members of the participants were not interviewed because we wanted to respect the individual confidentiality of both the participants and their close ones. Also the staff in the hospital of Peijas was excluded, because it was thought that any necessary information about the hospital could be obtained from elsewhere (coaches, participants and the psychiatric policlinic) – afterwards we felt, that Peijas maybe should have been included anyhow to verify the other respondents words. No representatives of the European Social Fund (ESR) were also not included because the role of ESR was only to provide money for the operations. The stakeholder interviews were held between February and April in 2015. In the interviews questions about the meaning and effect of the VOLUME project during the year 2014 were asked. The same interview guide was used in all interviews though small changes were made depending on the stakeholder. The interviews lasted between 45 and 85 minutes and they were all recorded and transcribed. The respondents were interviewed in their offices and often in the same premises were they meet the young people. The following table includes some details about the interviews.

STAKEHOLDER GROUP

INTERVIEW TYPE

N:O OF INTERVIEWEES

Participants

A group interview of nine participants (9) Qualitative (single-person) interviews of seven participants 7

VOLUME 2 coaches 2 JENGA The responsible instructor 1 Outreach youth worker A youth worker 1 Metsola A social therapist 1 TE-office

An expert who is responsible for the young adults in Kerava

1

Psychiatric policlinic A psychiatric nurse 1 Municipal unit of employment

A coordinator

1

The Youth Substance Stop The leader/psychoterapistpsychotherapist 1 Municipality of Kerava

From the social office: social secretary and a social worker From the youth services: youth service manager and the secretary of youth services (who was also the coordinator of VOLUME)

4 4. OUTCOMES AND EVIDENCE This chapter describes the key stakeholders and explains their roles in the process of change that the studied activity produces. Treated are the inputs, outputs and outcomes and they together form the core of the theory of change – physically presented in the impact map – of the VOLUME activities. Indicators for the outcomes are then introduced and finally, proxies are used to give financial values to the outcomes.

[T]hese young people […] [T]hey have a daily rhythm, something meaningful to do and a place to go: these things are very valuable as such.

- Leader of the substance stop -


4. OUTCOMES AND EVIDENCEThis chapter describes the key stakeholders and explains their roles in the process of change that the studied activity produces. Treated are the inputs, outputs and outcomes and they together form the core of the theory of change – physically presented in the impact map ¬– of the VOLUME activities. Indicators for the outcomes are then introduced and finally, proxies are used to give financial values to the outcomes.

4.1. Stakeholder Inputs and OutputsBy inputs it is meant, what each stakeholder brings to the project. Outputs are the concrete quantitative ingredients or effects of the activity.

The participating young adultsIn 2014 38 young people took part in the VOLUME activities, an average of 26 hours a week.

They have for example learned to wake up in the morning and to gosomewhere. It is much easier for them to get a summer job when they can wake up

and they have the attitude of going to the work.

- Specialist in the labor office -

Friends and FamilyThe participants’ relationships with their families varies a lot and with their friends most of the interviewed young had been interacting in the Internet. Many participants described how they had started to see their friends more and some described how they had started to interact more with their family. Several respondents also felt that their family members and friends were less worried than before and proud of them.

VOLUME CoachesThe 2 coaches’ input is their work effort in the project (37,5 hours a week per coach) and their output is the organizing, coaching and training that they do.

JENGAJENGA is the bigger and older workshop that VOLUME is tightly linked to.

JENGA provides access for the participants to its five different workshops and supports the VOLUME coaches. JENGA partic-ipants who have problems with adaptation have a chance to change to VOLUME. Many of VOLUME´s participants also move to JENGA after they feel comfortable enough with working and daily routines.

”


14

Outreach youth workerThe input of the outreach youth work was, that she got in touch with the prospective participants and recommended VOLUME to them. 16 out of her 75 clients (roughly 20%) were sent to VOLUME in 2014.

As for the output for the outreach, VOLUME significantly benefits outreach youth work by diminishing its workload. The mu-nicipality of Kerava has only one outreach youth worker.

Metsola (The center of substance and mental health treatment)Metsola guided some of their clients to the workshop and several VOLUME´s participants were guided to METSOLA to receive social therapeutic help.

TE-officeThe labor office is a state run authority that is a link between the employers and job applicants by bringing offers of employment into touch with applications for employment. The TE-office prepares an activation plan together with the municipal social services and sends young adults to VOLUME. It also provides visits to a work psychologist if needed. This is the input of the TE-office for VOLUME. As regards the outputs for the TE-office by VOLUME, according to the personnel of the TE-office their work is much easier because they now have a place where they can send the young adult. Also, due to VOLUME activities the young are more prepared to take care of their responsibilities with the authorities and instead of cancelling meetings (or not showing up) they do show up.

Psychiatric policlinic for psychosis in TikkurilaMany of the young adults have been receiving different kinds of treatments in the psychiatric policlinic and as one of the “send-ing” stakeholders it also recommends VOLUME for some young adults. Due to VOLUME there has been less need for psychi-atric treatment (psychosis) for some participants.

Municipal unit of employment (Työllisyysyksikkö):The municipal unit of employment guides young adults to VOLUME/JENGA and as a result the personnel of the unit needs significantly less hours to consult the participants.

Youth substance stop (Nuorten pysäkki) As a part of the cooperation the Youth´s substance stop provides substance therapy, trainings (e.g. first aid and information on drugs) and irregular drug tests for all the participants of both JENGA and VOLUME. Some of VOLUME´s participants were guided to the Substance stop and vice versa.

The hospital of Peijas – inpatient psychiatric careThe participants of the VOLUME activities use less hospital services and the hospital has a new place to recommend after the ward periods have ended.

Municipality of KeravaThe youth services of the municipality of Kerava funded the activities by paying 25% percent of the VOLUME costs in 2014. That is a total of (28 331 €) € (=12/14 x 33 053 €). The youth services also organized VOLUME. Kerava’s social service employ-ees have had some of VOLUME’s participants as their clients and have encouraged some to go to VOLUME.

European Social FundThe European Social Fund (ESR) financed the activities by providing 75% percent of the VOLUME’s budget in 2014. That is a total of 84 993 € (=12/14 x 99 159 €).


Stakeholder inputs and outputs are listed in the table below.

The benefit comes from the fact that the young person gets help as soon as possible and there will be no long periods of inpatient treatment… or therapy, but the person

manages with the “lighter” support.

- The outreach youth worker - ”


18

The youth services of the municipality of Kerava funded the activities by paying 25% percent of the VOLUME costs in 2014. That is a total of (28 331 €) € (=12/14 x 33 053 €). The youth services also organized VOLUME. Kerava’s social service employees have had some of VOLUME’s participants as their clients and have encouraged some to go to VOLUME. European Social Fund The European Social Fund (ESR) financed the activities by providing 75% percent of the VOLUME’s budget in 2014. That is a total of 84 993 € (=12/14 x 99 159 €). Stakeholder inputs and outputs are listed in the table below.

STAKEHOLDER INPUTS OUTPUTS

PARTICIPANTS Time Participating in VOLUME’s activities (38 participants, 26 h/week)

FRIENDS AND FAMILY Time Social interaction

COACHES Work effort Organizing, coaching, work training, both 37,5 hours a week

JENGA

Gives access to JENGA's resources.

Resources such as workshop, computers and social facilities

Sends young people to VOLUME (and receives VOLUME participants) "Output"=participants Partnership in cooperation Cooperation

OUTREACH YOUTH WORK Sends young people to VOLUME

"Output"=participants (in 2014 16 out 75 clients of Outreach sent to VOLUME)

METSOLA Sends and receives VOLUME participants, work effort

”Output”=participants; Metsola provides VOLUME participants with social therapeutic help (in 2014 7 participants, in average 8,5 visits per year per participant)

TE-OFFICE Work effort ”Output”=participants; all VOLUME’s participants are clients to the TE-office

PSYCHIATRIC POLICLINIC

Work effort ”Output”=participants, psychiatric treatment

HOSPITAL OF PEIJAS

Work effort ”Output”=participants, hospital services

MUNICIPAL UNIT OF EMPLOYMENT

Work effort ”Output”=participants (31 in 2014)

YOUTH SUBSTANCE STOP

Work effort ”Output”=participants (3 a year), substance training, therapy, tests

ESR

Funding

84 993 € made the functioning of VOLUME possible in 2014

The youth services: funding and work effort

28 331 € made the functioning of VOLUME possible in 2014

MUNICIPALITY OF KERAVA The social services: work effort

A social secretary and a youth worker have worked with some participants who were guided to VOLUME


16

4.2. Description of the Outcomes and the IndicatorsAn activity’s outcomes are the material, social (or psychological) end results for the participants.

In the participant interviews (both group and one-to-one) the total count of participants was 16. The interviewed group consist-ed of 9 participants and the one-to-one interviews were conducted on seven (7) persons. 5 persons took part in both interview types. Some of participants were interviewed both individually and in the group discussion, but this has been accounted for in the calculations to avoid double counting.

OUTCOMES FOR THE PARTICIPANTS

By taking part in the VOLUME activities the participants become socially more active and skilled and they can for example improve their daily rhythm. Once the young are socially more secure to interact with other people and their day rhythm is more similar with the rest of the society, it is easier for them to spend more time outside of their homes. For example, they can more independently run their daily errands with the authorities, their life feels more meaningful and they also have motivation to look after themselves and their homes. Through different kind of activities the participants can get new skills, such as skills at work and practical skills, everything from being on time, cleaning and cooking and preparing a CV.

The analysis of the data suggested that there were at least 11 salient outcomes for the young participants. We were able to arrange them into five groups: improved mental health and sense of energy, better daily rhythm and life skills, better social skills and relations, better skills for study and work and reduction in addictive behavior. As for the study and working skills, it is possible to attribute at least the private sector employment found by a participant, the three jobs in JENGA, the vocational studies and the volunteer-ing work done by one participant to the yield of the project. In the following text we’ll describe how we found out about these outcomes and tell which indicators we used to measure them and how many respondents confirmed them.

It is important to note, that many of the outcomes could be taken into account either as outcomes for the participants or as outcomes for “other” stakeholders. This includes the Metsola, the psychiatric policlinic, the hospital of Peijas, the municipal unit of employment and the Youth Substance Stop. To avoid double counting they are only treated as outcomes related to partici-pants. Also, some of the stakeholders selected as “key stakeholders” (TE-office and the municipality of Kerava social services and youth services) are not at all featured among the outcomes, because they weren’t connected to any outcomes regarded as material (enough), or were already tightly connected to other, included outcomes. An extremely important stakeholder, the European Social Fund, provider of the bulk of the VOLUME funding, is not included in the impact map, but is taken into account when investments are valued in the report.

A. OUTCOME GROUP: IMPROVED MENTAL HEALTH AND SENSE OF ENERGY

A common outcome for the participants was increased mental health and sense of energy. We asked the participants in the group interview and in the individual interviews how they felt when they joined the activities and how they felt at that particular mo-ment. All the respondents indicated that there had been clear changes for the better and both coaches confirmed this. As this kind of information is hard to quantify, we used three kinds of changes in the respondents behavior as indicators for the variable. This is depicted below.

A. 1. Outcome: Improved mental healthWe asked both in the group and individual interviews if there had been any change in the participants’ use of mental health ser-vices. It turned out that participation to VOLUME positively affected the mental health to the extent that two participants had been able to stop psychosis treatment totally. Improved mental health was therefore operationalizable with the indicator fewer visits at psychiatric policlinic. One respondent in the individual interviews who had formerly been at the psychiatric department of the hospitality of Peijas said that he had no longer need for inpatient treatment because he was feeling so good. The relevant indicator here is reduced number of inpatient treatment nights.

A.2. Outcome: Increased level of energy with abilities and skills to take care of oneself The interviews revealed that the participants were feeling more energetic and that they felt they had more abilities and skills to take care of themselves. As an indicator here we used the reduced number of visits to the health center, and according to the one-to-one interviews this change was quantifiable (=could be used as a basis for calculation) for three out of seven participants.


B. OUTCOME GROUP: BETTER DAILY RHYTHM AND LIFE SKILLS

B.1. Outcome: Improved everyday life skillsThe respondent told that they had learned skills that are needed in the daily living. They had, in a sense, become more indepen-dent. This outcome was indicated by improved everyday life skills as reported by the participants and was treated as qualitative.

B.2. Outcome: Enhanced daily rhythmEnhanced daily rhythm was a uniting change for six of the seven respondents who participated in the individual interviews. All three coaches were very clear with this outcome and they stated that the enhancement of the daily rhythm is very important for the change that happens in the lives of the participants. Also this outcome was treated as qualitative, and indicated by the “normalized” daily rhythm as reported by the participants.

C. OUTCOME GROUP: BETTER SOCIAL SKILLS AND RELATIONS

C.1. Outcome: Enhanced social skillsEnhanced social skills were something the participants brought up themselves in the group interview. Many respondents had been afraid of social situations and had been avoiding public places and interaction with other people. In the one-to-one in-terviews all the seven respondents said that their social skills had become better. The coordinator of the employment unit also talked about this a lot and as an indicator we can here use the reduction in the amount of working hours that the employment unit coordinator uses for supporting the participants to run their daily errands.

And also the fact that if something happens, I feel like I could tolerate it much easier when there now is a network of people who support me.

- A participant in the group interview -

C.2. Outcome: New FriendsFour of the participants reported having new friends, and this reporting was also the relevant indicator. The change was treated as qualitative.

D. OUTCOME GROUP: BETTER SKILLS FOR STUDY AND WORK

D.1. Outcome: Increased ability to workVOLUME has also increased the participant’s ability to work. Many of them had no work experience at all, but they now had will, knowledge and skills to apply for a job. As an sign for this change we used the fact that one of these previously unemployed youth had found a job in the open market and three had started to work in JENGA: therefore, the indicator is the the number of participants who have found employment.

D.2. Outcome: Increased motivationOne outcome was that the participants had started to feel more motivated in general. They won´t give up so easily and they have motivation to do things in their everyday life. All seven respondents said in individual interviews that they were feeling more mo-tivated. This outcome had as its indicator the reporting of increased motivation by the participants and it was treated as qualitative.

D.3. Outcome: Clearer plans for the futureIt turned out in interviews that many participants didn´t know what they would like to do in their lives before they came to VOLUME. We asked if they had done new plans as concerns their future studies or working. Four out of the seven respon-dents said in the one-to-one interviews that they had made some new plans. One coach said also how many participants had found new dreams and plans for their future. This outcome also is subjective and qualitative and it is indicated by participants reporting having made new plans for their future.

”


18

E. OUTCOME GROUP: REDUCTION IN ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR

E.1. Outcome: Reduced use of computer One of the most evident outcomes was the reduced time the young spent in front of the computer. We asked the respondents in the individual interviews how many hours per week they were using computer before they came to VOLUME and how many hours they did now. Before coming to VOLUME the young had been spending an average of 61 hours per week in front of computer and of these 61 hours, 40 hours was used for playing computer games. The average use of computer had decreased with 31 hours and game playing with 23 hours. The indicator was, naturally, the counting of the time that the computer use came down. Altogether six respondents in one-to-one interviews had decreased their use of computer.

E.2. Outcome: Reduced use of alcohol and drugsThe reduced use of alcohol and drugs was one clear outcome of the activities. It turned out in the individual interviews that six of the seven respondents had been using drugs before they came to VOLUME. One had stopped daily using and three of had stopped using drugs totally. Four participants had reduced their alcohol consumption to a considerable extent. Both 2 coaches of VOLUME, the responsible instructor of JENGA and the leader of the substance Stop all mentioned how the participants were using less drugs and alcohol. Besides the participants reports as an indicator this change in behavior was also seen in the number of visits to the Youth Substance Stop: three participants took part in psychotherapeutic counseling.

Also the municipal center of substance and mental health treatment Metsola received new clients because the coaches encouraged some of the participants to visit there. 7 participants visited Metsola and had several meetings with a social therapist. The social therapist of Metsola and two coaches all confirmed this. We asked the social therapist how many persons were guided to their ser-vices and how many times they met. There had been an average 8,5 visits with the seven participants who were guided to Metsola.

With a view of the monetization, the problem with this kind of a change is that it is a cost in the short run (the price of the visits to the Substance stop and Metsola) but is likely to bring benefits on the long run. It is difficult to give financial value to a substance-free future. We abstained from speculating and treated this change as qualitative. The problem is treated in more detail below, under the title “4.3. Negative Outcomes”.

OUTCOMES FOR THE OTHER STAKEHOLDERS

The outcomes for the other stakeholders were either not so easily divisible into groups, or only one relevant outcome was dis-cernible for each stakeholder.

FRIENDS AND FAMILYOutcome: better relationshipsWe asked in the individual interviews if the participation to VOLUME´s activities had influenced their relationships with their close ones. Four respondents of the seven said that their family members and “old” friends are less worried and some of them told how these people are proud of them. Three coaches said also that they had heard that many participants had developed a better relationship with their close ones. (It should be noted that the friends and relatives themselves were not asked but the participants instead.) The outcome was treated as qualitative and indicated by the participants’ statement.

COACHES OF VOLUME Outcome: Meaningful workAs a part of interviewing the coaches we asked how they felt about working with the participants. Both of them liked working in VOLUME and they enjoyed also seeing the positive change that happened in the participants. The indicator was, naturally, what the coaches stated.

JENGA 1. Outcome (to VOLUME only): Gives access to JENGA’s resources(E.g. VOLUME´s participants work every week in JENGA.)

2. Outcome: has a place to send its participants with special needsJENGA can send participants to VOLUME and vice versa.

3. Outcome: productive interactionVOLUME offers an important possibility for cooperation. While interviewing the coaches and the respondents we started to see

how well the two workshops support one another.


OUTREACH YOUTH WORK Outcome: more resources to other young peopleInterview with the outreach youth worker revealed how important VOLUME is for her work. Because the VOLUME partic-ipants are often those with biggest problems and needs, the outreach youth worker had been using a lot of time supporting their daily life. So her workload had simply become smaller than it was before and the value can be indicated by the amount of working hours saved for other customers besides VOLUME participants.

The following table condenses the information on the outcomes (changes) different stakeholders have experienced as a result of the activities. Included also are the indicators to measure these changes.


24

STAKEH. OUTCOME GROUP OUTCOMES INDICATORS

PART- ICIPANTS

IMPROVED MENTAL HEALTH AND SENSE OF ENERGY

Improved mental health

Fewer visits at the psychiatric policlinic

Reduced number of inpatient treatment nights Increased level of energy with abilities and skills to take care of oneself Reduced number of visits to the health center

BETTER DAILY RHYTHM AND LIFE SKILLS

Improved everyday life skills

Improved everyday life skills as reported by the participants.

Enhanced daily rhythm "Normalized" daily rhythm as reported by the participants

BETTER SOCIAL SKILLS AND RELATIONS

Enhanced social skills

The reduction in the amount of working hours that the employment unit coordinator uses for supporting the participants to run their daily errands

New friends Whether participants report having new friends.

BETTER SKILLS FOR STUDY AND WORK

Increased ability to work Number of participants who have found employment

Increased motivation Whether participants report increased motivation

Clearer plans for the future Whether participants report having made new plans for their future

REDUCTION IN ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR

Reduced use of computer The change (reduction) in time used with the computer

Reduced use of alcohol and drugs

The participants reports, and the number of visits to the Youth substance stop and Metsola

FRIENDS AND FAMILY (n.a.)

More interaction and better relationship with the close ones (participants) and a reduced worry for them.

Whether the participants report that there has been changes in the relationships

COACHES (n.a.) Sense of meaningfulness at work

Whether the coaches report that they enjoy working in VOLUME

JENGA

(n.a.) (Outcomes for VOLUME only.) VOLUME has used JENGA's resources.

(n.a.)

JENGA has a place (=VOLUME) for its participants who have special needs

JENGA has placed it's participants to VOLUME and received VOLUME´s participants.

(n.a.) Productive interaction Cooperative projects have taken place. OUT-REACH YOUTH WORK (n.a.)

More resources to other young people

The outreach youth worker uses less working hours for supporting the participants.


20

4.3. Negative Outcomes

In an impact evaluation it is important to evaluate both the positive and negative outcomes of the activities. Negative in this sense stands for outcomes that are causing or might cause more costs than benefits for the society.

Increase in the use of mental health servicesIt is a likely scenario that after getting to VOLUME the participants are being guided to treatment and they start to get help with their mental health and drug related problems. Most often the participants go to Metsola and Youth Substance Stop where they can meet regularly or a few times with a therapist or for example participate into a peer support group. This causes direct costs for the municipality because their services are being used more. In the long run, however, this kind of help often prevents the participants from needing more intensive treatments, such as inpatient ward and psychosis services. Because here a seemingly negative financial outcome has so evident positive consequences in the longer perspective there is no reason to treat the increase of the usage of either the Substance stop or Metsola as negatives. In the spirit of the principle of prudence both Metsola and Youth Substance Stop are left out of the monetization.

Many respondents said that some of the participants need both therapeutic treatment and VOLUME because these two can support one another. So participation to the activities not only help the participants to get right kind of help but also keeps the participants in their treatment.

A risk of ”group dependence”?Is there a risk that the young participants get attached to VOLUME´s group and safe atmosphere that they find it hard to move on? One respondent had been involved full 12 months in VOLUME and many others nine months. (The average attendance was four months.)

A risk that the personal life situation is worse after VOLUME than before it?What happens if the person ”fails” in his plans? Will this eventually lead to a feeling or experience of incompetence? During the VOLUME project seven persons interrupted their participation due to adaptation problems, drugs, etc. It is difficult to estimate this risk, but it´s a worst case scenario. For this reason it is good that the personnel follows up the young people after VOLUME and supports them to move forward.

“VOLUME is needed for problem cases like me”

- Participant

4.4. Duration of Change

It is hard to define, how long the achieved benefits are in effect for the participants after they have attended in the project. The at-tendance periods for participants had different lengths but an average period was about 4 months. Some of the benefits may take effect right after the participant enters the program, some benefits may take more time to ”mature”. Some benefits ”last” only for the duration of the actual intervention, some have the potential to have a longer lasting effect. We think it is not unrealistic to presume that the benefits that may have longer impact in terms of time may have an effect for a years time, counting from the start of the attendance. Taking this as a general rule, we will solve the question about the duration of each benefit stakeholder by stakeholder, outcome by outcome.

4.5. Analysis of the Investment The funding partners (European Social Fund and the youth services of the municipality of Kerava) were already featured above. Let’s, nevertheless, recapitulate and complement the information.

”


VOLUME was granted the sum of 99 155 € (75%) of the total financing from the European Social Fund. This money was orig-inally allocated to the year 2014 (12 months). A further 25%, 33 053 € came from the municipality of Kerava [youth services]. The total sum of 132 212 was big enough to finance the activities of VOLUME during two extra months in the beginning of 2015, a total of 14 months. Therefore the investment that helped to create the benefits we are interested in — the year 2014 — are on purely computational term 12/14 of the total sum, i.e. 12/14 x 132 212 ≈ 113 325 €.

During 2014 there were also five trainees involved in the activities. In SROI analysis there is a possibility to value for example the time of the volunteers or trainees but we have decided not to do this because of the difficulty in determining the value for either VOLUME or for (for example) the schools that sent the trainees.

4.6. Financial Proxies and Outcome ValuationIn SROI financial proxies are used to establish the monetary values of the identified outcomes. Below we have given a financial value only to some of the outcomes — the clearest cases — to make the evaluation as credible as possible.

In the stakeholder interviews we asked questions with the intention to gain information about the financial values. The stake-holders felt that VOLUME had been a huge help for them, but they all found it hard to evaluate the activities. We asked the participants to give a value for the change they´ve experienced but they felt that evaluation was difficult. Some said that it would be more valuable than a “pile of money”. To make it easier for the professionals to give the financial value, we asked them how many hours they usually invested to an individual participant to use this information as a point of comparison. This was also hard for most of them for the following reasons: a) They found it difficult to separate VOLUME´s young adults from their other clients. b) There was no monitoring of how many hours they invest to individual clients.c) They invested to individual clients in various ways by meeting them, calling them by phone, preparing something for them or having a meeting that was related to the young person’s issues.

The representative of the employment unit said that she was using approximately 10 hours per VOLUME´s clients per month before they got into VOLUME and 10 minutes per participant per month after this. This anecdotal statement gives some idea of the importance of VOLUME. The outreach youth worker wasn´t able to discern how many hours the difference was, but she also said that VOLUME had been a huge help because there now was a place where she could send these young people. The ex-planation for the lighter workload was simple: earlier both stakeholders (with many others) had been helping the young persons to contact the authorities, take care of the bills, support them and help them to for example find work.

The participants were able to tell quite precisely how much they had for example decreased the use of different kind of mental health and health services. Many were also able to tell how many hours their using of computer had decreased. As regards the prevalence of different outcomes, most of the financial values in this SROI study are calculated by combining information from the answers of the participants with the responses of other stakeholders.

Giving proxy values to the outcomesTables below describe the valuation process of all the outcomes. The calculations of the values are most often based on the as-sumption that the seven interviewed respondents represent the entire group of participants (38 during 2014). This means that any benefits are calculated by multiplying the proxy value of “one unit” with the coefficient x/7*38, where x is the number of benefiting participants in the group of interviewed.

1. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to the improved mental health and a sense of energy

The outcome group improved mental health and sense of energy includes two different outcomes: first, improved mental health and second, increased level of energy with abilities and skills to take care of oneself. Improved mental health is operationalized with two indicators: fewer visits at psychiatric policlinic and reduced number of inpatient treatment nights.

The psychosis treatment is not that usual among the target group, so as a coefficient for the proxy (treatment price) we used the actual number of the patients (2), not the sample based quota of 2/7*38, calculated from the whole group of participants. The calculations are based on the assumption that a patient visits the policlinic once every three weeks during a period of one year. This leads to about 52/3 ≈ 17 visits. The cost of the first visit is 290 € and any subsequent visits 140 €. This calculates in the following manner:

2 x [290€ + (16 x 140 €)] = 5060 €


22

The likelihood of the inpatient treatment is based on an assumption that one of every seventh participant (≈ 5 participants, i.e. 14% of the 38 participants) has been receiving inpatient ward in the past. The cost for 24 hours of inpatient treatment in Peijas Hospital is 495 € (the proxy value) and the assumed length of treatment is here two weeks, i.e. 14 days. The coaches of VOL-UME deemed these estimates realistic. The total value of the change calculates as:

(1/7 x 38) x (14 x 495€) ≈ 37 620 €

The increased level of energy with abilities and skills to take care of oneself was valued by using the decreased need for health center – the price of a doctor’s visit – as a proxy. Even though visits to a general practician are in question we can take this reduc-tion as a token of enhancement in abilities to function. Three out of seven respondents told in one-to-one interviews that they had reduced their visits to doctors because they no longer had problems with for example headaches and stress. This amounts to 43%, about 16 participants out of the 38. The average amount of reduction was 2,4 visits per year. The cost of one visit was 132 €. We get:

[(3/7 x 38) x (2,4 x 132€)] ≈ 5159 €

2. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to better daily rhythm and life skills

The outcome group better daily rhythm and life skills included the outcomes improved everyday life skills and enhanced daily rhythm. The participants had become more independent and they now took responsibility for their actions in a different way than before. Six out of seven respondents described how their daily rhythm had become better and four out of seven respon-dents had learned some kind of new life skills in VOLUME. This is a significant outcome group, but we decided not to give it a financial value because reliable proxies and indicators were difficult to find. These outcomes are also so closely related to other outcomes that it would have been difficult to avoid double counting.


28

and the assumed length of treatment is here two weeks, i.e. 14 days. The coaches of VOLUME deemed these estimates realistic. The total value of the change calculates as: (1/7 x 38) x (14 x 495€) ≈ 37 620 € The increased level of energy with abilities and skills to take care of oneself was valued by using the decreased need for health center – the price of a doctor’s visit – as a proxy. Even though visits to a general practician are in question we can take this reduction as a token of enhancement in abilities to function. Three out of seven respondents told in one-to-one interviews that they had reduced their visits to doctors because they no longer had problems with for example headaches and stress. This amounts to 43%, about 16 participants out of the 38. The average amount of reduction was 2,4 visits per year. The cost of one visit was 132 €. We get: [(3/7 x 38) x (2,4 x 132€)] ≈ 5159 €

STAKE- HOLDER

OUTCOME GROUP

OUT- COME INDICATOR PROXY CALCULATION VALUE


Fewer visits at the psychiatric policlinic

First visit at the policlinic á 290 €, subsequent visits á 140 €

Two persons, one treatment every third week during 12 months --> 52/3 ≈ 17 treatments, i.e. first visit + 16 subsequent visits --> calculation: 2 x [290€ + (16 x 140€)] 5 060.00 €

Reduced number of inpatient treatment nights

24 hours of inpatient treatment in Peijas Hospital, 495 €

1 out of 7 in sample, 14% of 38 ≈ 5 participants, two weeks in inpatient treatment, 24 h of treatment costs 495€ --> calculation: (1/7 x 38) x (14 x 495€) 37 620.00 €

PART- ICIPANTS


Increased level of energy with abilities and skills to take care of oneself

Reduced number of visits to the health center

A visit at a doctor in the municipality of Kerava health center, á 132 €.

3 out of 7 in sample, 43% of 38 ≈ 15 participants had decreased their visits at the health center with 2,4 visits/year, the cost of visit 132 --> calculation: [(3/7 x 38) x (2,4 x 132€)] 5 159.00 €

2. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to better daily rhythm and life skills The outcome group better daily rhythm and life skills included the outcomes improved everyday life skills and enhanced daily rhythm. The participants had become more independent and they now took responsibility for their actions in a different way than before. Six out of seven respondents described how their daily rhythm had become better and four out of seven respondents had learned some kind of new life skills in VOLUME. This is a significant outcome group, but we decided not to give it a financial value because reliable proxies and indicators were


29

difficult to find. These outcomes are also so closely related to other outcomes that it would have been difficult to avoid double counting.

STAKE- HOLDER

OUTCOME GROUP


Improved everyday life skills

Improved everyday skills as reported by the participants.

No proxy value

Valuing everyday life skills is too inaccurate and non-credible QUALITATIVE

PART-ICIPANTS

BETTER DAILY RHYTHM AND LIFE-SKILLS

Enhanced daily rhythm

"Normalized" daily rhythm as reported by the participants

No proxy value

Lack of credible indicators + dependence on the other outcomes QUALITATIVE

3. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to better social skills and relations The outcome group better social skills and relations consist of two specific outcomes: enhanced social skills and new friends. Better social skills was one of the major outcomes for the target group because many of them had been suffering from fear of social situations and they had been for example avoiding public places. Because of this, their ability to interact for example with authorities had been so insufficient that they needed an active support from the employment unit. 30 participant came to VOLUME through the employment unit. (It is not known, whether they all came in 2014, so we decided to reduce the number by 3 to be extra careful. This is the number of participants that entered VOLUME in the two months of 2015.) The coordinator of the employment services said how she used approximately 10 hours/ month for a young person before they got to VOLUME and 10 minutes after this, which is of course, a more or less anecdotal piece of information. In order to use the principle of prudence, our calculation is based on a reduction from 4 hours to this “ten minutes”, which means that the coordinator invests 3 hours 50 minutes less time for each participant monthly. We give the coordinator’s hourly wage (i.e. the proxy) the estimate of 20€ (we will assume that it includes the social fees). The calculation goes as follows: 27 x 12 x 3 78

98&x 20 € ≈ 24 840 € We haven´t given a value for new friends, because giving a value for friendship is barely possible and credible indicators are hard to find.


3. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to better social skills and relations

The outcome group better social skills and relations consist of two specific outcomes: enhanced social skills and new friends. Better social skills was one of the major outcomes for the target group because many of them had been suffering from fear of social situations and they had been for example avoiding public places. Because of this, their ability to interact for example with authorities had been so insufficient that they needed an active support from the employment unit. 30 participant came to VOLUME through the employment unit. (It is not known, whether they all came in 2014, so we decided to reduce the number by 3 to be extra careful. This is the number of participants that entered VOLUME in the two months of 2015.) The coordinator of the employment services said how she used approximately 10 hours/ month for a young person before they got to VOLUME and 10 minutes after this, which is of course, a more or less anecdotal piece of information. In accordance with the principle of prudence, our calculation is based on a reduction from 4 hours to this “ten minutes”, which means that the coordinator invests 3 hours 50 minutes less time for each participant monthly. We give the coordinator’s hourly wage (i.e. the proxy) the estimate of 20€ (we will assume that it includes the social fees). The calculation goes as follows:

27 x 12 x 3 50/60 x 20 € ≈ 24 840 €

We haven´t given a value for new friends, because giving a value for friendship is barely possible and credible indicators are hard to find.

4. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to study and working skills

One of the main goals of the activities in VOLUME is to give the participant skills that are needed in study and at work. The better skills for study and work outcome group includes three different outcomes: increased ability to work, increased motivation and clearer plans for the future.

By the end of May 2015 one participant had managed to get a job from the private sector and three from JENGA. We have assumed that the work contract in the private sector has a length of one year and we used the traditional minimum wage in Fin-land (the monthly pay for the work as a cashier, 1750€) as a proxy. The three persons who got jobs from JENGA had part time contracts (in total 26 months). To respect the principle of prudence we have decided to use 24 months work effort (2 persons working with a salary of 1428 € ). We have not made any divisions to benefit received or costs (like welfare benefits) avoided by the participants, state or municipality, but have calculated the sum of the whole gross wages plus social security costs as social benefits to approximate the increase of the ability to work among the participants. The social security fees amount to 27% of the monthly pay. Therefore we get the following calculations to approximate the social benefit of the increased ability to work:

12 x 1,27 x 1750 € + 2 x 12 x 1,27 x 1428€ ≈ 70 195€


30

STAKE- HOLDER

OUTCOME GROUP



The reduction in the amount of working hours that the employment unit coordinator uses for supporting the participants to run their daily errands

An estimation of a coordinator´s hourly wage: 20 € (includes all costs)

The coordinator uses now 3 h and 50 min less time for individual participants monthly, 27 persons, duration 12 months, wage 20€/h --> calculation: 27 x 12 x 3 50/60 x 20€ 24 840.00 €

PART- ICIPANTS


New friends

Whether participants report having new friends.

No proxy value

Lack of credible indicators + dependence on the other outcomes QUALITATIVE

4. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to study and working skills One of the main goals of the activities in VOLUME is to give the participant skills that are needed in study and at work. The better skills for study and work outcome group includes three different outcomes: increased ability to work, increased motivation and clearer plans for the future. By the end of May 2015 one participant had managed to get a job from the private sector and three from JENGA.9 We have assumed that the work contract in the private sector has a length of one year and we used the traditional minimum wage in Finland (the monthly pay for the work as a cashier, 1750€) as a proxy. The three persons who got jobs from JENGA had part time contracts (in total 26 months). To respect the principle of prudence we have decided to use 24 months work effort (2 persons working with a salary of 1428 €10). The benefits for society consist of the taxes and social security payments and the avoided social benefits. In this case we assume that in the counterfactual situation the participant would have been receiving a monthly unemployment benefit and housing benefit of about 800 € in total. The estimated value of 800 € is based on the assumption that all of them receive at least the level of guarantee pension. Pension benefit guarantees everyone a minimum pension (746,57€ per month in year 201511) which is larger than the national pension. Same people also receive typically housing allowance. We assumed that the tax rate for the participant working in private sector was 20% and 19 % for those working in JENGA). The social security fees amount to 27% of the monthly pay. Therefore we get the following calculations for the social benefit: [(12 x 1750 € *0,2) +(12 x 1750 € x 0,27) +(12 x 800)] x 1 + [(12 x 1428 € x 0,19)+(12 x 1428 € x 0,27)+(12 x 800 €)] x 2 ≈ 54 435 € 9 Information obtained from VOLUME 2015 10 Information obtained from JENGA 2015 11 http://stm.fi/en/income-security/pensions"


24

Motivation and clearer plans for the future are important and useful outcomes both in working and studying. These things are always subjective experiences, so they can´t be easily valued and are treated as qualitative changes.

5. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to the addictive behavior

Less addictive behavior was an outcome group including the reduced use of computer and the reduced use of alcohol and drugs. The change in the addictive using of drugs, alcohol and computer time was very clear. The weekly use of computer diminished 30 hours, of which 23 hours had been computer gaming. The change was relevant for 6 out of 7 (about 0,86%, i.e. 33 out of 38) of the interviewed participants. This reduction was approximately the same amount that the participants in average spent in VOL-UME (26 hours/week). So in most of the cases, VOLUME has “replaced” the using of computer as something more enjoyable during the time of attendance to VOLUME (an average of 4 months, i.e. 16 weeks per person). We have given a one euros proxy value for every hour away from computer and we call it “the price of a meaningful activity”. 1€ is 10% of the minimum hourly wage of approximately 10 euros in Finland. The calculation follows:

6/7 x 38 x 16 x 26 x 1€ ≈ 13 550 €


31

A note about the benefits and the impact map stakeholder “selection” is here in place. Tax money is being received by the municipality and state. These stakeholders are not featured in the impact map but are supposed to be “latently” present in the analysis, in the same manner as both Youth Substance Stop and Metsola are written “in “ the analysis, without explicitly bringing them forth in the impact map.

STAKE- HOLDER

OUTCOME GROUP


Increased ability to work

Number of participants who have found employment

Cashier minimum wage in Finland, 1750 €, montly salary in Jenga 1428 €

One participant found a job in the open market and three started to work in JENGA (calculation with two persons). 12 months, social fees 27% --> calculation: 12 x 1,27 x 1750€ + 2 x 12 x 1,27 x 1428€ 70 195 €

Increased motivation

Whether participants report increased motivation

No proxy value

A subjective experience and tightly linked to other outcomes QUALITATIVE

PART-ICIPANTS


Clearer plans for the future

Whether participants report having made new plans for their future

No proxy value A subjective experience QUALITATIVE

Motivation and clearer plans for the future are important and useful outcomes both in working and studying. These things are always subjective experiences, so they can´t be easily valued and are treated as qualitative changes. 5. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to the addictive behavior Less addictive behavior was an outcome group including the reduced use of computer and the reduced use of alcohol and drugs. The change in the addictive using of drugs, alcohol and computer time was very clear. The weekly use of computer diminished 30 hours, of which 23 hours had been computer gaming. The change was relevant for 6 out of 7 (about 0,86%, i.e. 33 out of 38) of the interviewed participants. This reduction was approximately the same amount that the participants in average spent in VOLUME (26 hours/week). So in most of the cases, VOLUME has “replaced” the using of computer as something more enjoyable during the time of attendance to VOLUME (an average of 4 months, i.e. 16 weeks per person). We have given a one euros proxy value for every hour away from computer and we call it “the price of a meaningful activity”. 1€ is 10% of the minimum hourly wage of approximately 10 euros in Finland. The calculation follows: 6/7 x 38 x 16 x 26 x 1€ ≈ 13 550 €


Valuing the benefit of the reduction in the use of alcohol and drugs is difficult . In our sample of 7 participants, 3 stopped using drugs and 4 diminished their alcohol consumption. These changes took place simultaneously as 7 participants visited Metsola and 3 the Youth Substance Stop. The outcomes as regards substance were not monetized: on the short run they are a cost (more visits to counseling) and in the long run a benefit.

6. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to other stakeholders besides participants

The three “closest” stakeholders to the participants — friends and family, coaches, and JENGA —play a central role both for the participants and for the existence of VOLUME. Outcomes that are related to these stakeholders are so subjective or too depen-dent on one another or on other outcomes that we decided to treat them as qualitative and not to valuate them.

The role of the outreach youth worker is also very important for VOLUME, and she gets big benefits from the activities, as well. 16 (21 %) of Outreach’s annual 76 clients were guided to VOLUME, and these resources were freed for other purposes. To be extra careful, we deducted the 3 participant of VOLUME in 2015 from the number of clients, 16, and did the calculation with 13 persons’ reduction instead. The calculation is based on the Outreach worker’s monthly salary (2400 €), with public sector social security fees (30%) added on top. Customers have in average had a 7 months customership.

13/76 x 7 x 1,3 x 2400 € ≈ 3736 €

(VOLUME) saves my working time for other and several young people.

- The outreach youth worker of Kerava -”


32

Valuing the benefit of the reduction in the use of alcohol and drugs is difficult12. In our sample of 7 participants, 3 stopped using drugs and 4 diminished their alcohol consumption. These changes took place simultaneously as 7 participants visited Metsola and 3 the Youth Substance Stop. The outcomes as regards substance were not monetized: on the short run they are a cost (more visits to counseling) and in the long run a benefit.

STAKE- HOLDER

OUTCOME GROUP


Reduced use of computer

The change (reduction) in time used with the computer

The value of doing something "more meaningful" (group participation) instead of using computer: 1 €/ h

6 out of 7 in sample, 86% of 38 ≈ 33 persons, reduced using of computer an average of 26 hours/week/person for 4 months, 1 €/ h --> calculation: 6/7 x 38 x 16 x 26 x 1€ 13 550.00 €

PART-ICIPANTS

REDUCTION IN ADDICTIVE BEHAVIOUR

Reduced use of alcohol and drugs

The participants reports, and the number of visits to the youth substance stop No proxy value

(Left out of calculation. A cost in the short run, a benefit in the long run, but difficult to monetize.) "QUALITATIVE"

6. Proxies and values of outcomes that are related to other stakeholders besides participants The three “closest” stakeholders to the participants — friends and family, coaches, and JENGA —play a central role both for the participants and for the existence of VOLUME. Outcomes that are related to these stakeholders are so subjective or too dependent on one another or on other outcomes that we decided to treat them as qualitative and not to valuate them. The role of the outreach youth worker is also very important for VOLUME, and she gets big benefits from the activities, as well. 16 (21 %) of Outreach’s annual 76 clients were guided to VOLUME, and these resources were freed for other purposes. To be extra careful, we deducted the 3 participant of VOLUME in 2015 from the number of clients, 16, and did the calculation with 13 persons’ reduction instead. The calculation is based on the Outreach worker’s monthly salary (2400 €), with public sector social security fees (30%) added on top. Customers have in average had a 7 months customership. 13/76 x 7 x 1,3 x 2400 € ≈ 3736 €

(VOLUME) saves my working time for other and several young people.

12"The"National"Institute"of"Health"has"estimated"that"the"annual"costs"of"a"problem"drinker"is"between"8000"€"and"9300"€"and"the"annual"costs"of"a"drug"user"are"21"000"€.""THL,"Päihdehaittakustannukset"2010,"http://www.thl.fi/tilastoliite/tilastoraportit/2012/Tr11_12.pdf"


26

4.7. Impact MapThe impact map of VOLUME sums up the central impact chains of the most important stakeholders. The full impact map with all the necessary information for calculating the social value can be found in the Appendix.

5. ESTABLISHING IMPACTThis chapter describes the impact of the VOLUME when other factors that might have influenced to the changes are taken into account. The society influences individuals and individuals are influencing the society. Each of us lives in his or her own unique life sit-uation: with his or her own background networks and resources. In society there are also other institutional mechanisms that affect the same factors that VOLUME tries to make a change in. For these reasons all the positive and negative changes can´t be considered to be a result of the VOLUME activities. Deadweight, attribution and displacement are the three main factors that

may have influenced VOLUME´s outcomes in one way or another. Because this is an evaluative report and looks back at the outcomes of year 2014, or a maximum of one year, we haven´t focused on drop-off.


33

- The outreach youth worker of Kerava -

STAKE- HOLDER

OUTCOME GROUP


FRIENDS(AND(FAMILY (n.a.)

More interaction and better relationship with the close ones (participants) and a reduced worry for them.

Whether the participants report that there has been changes in the relationships No proxy value A subjective experience QUALITATIVE

COACHES (n.a.)

Sense of meaninfulness at work

Whether the coaches report that they enjoy working in VOLUME No proxy value A subjective experience QUALITATIVE

JENGA (n.a.)

(Outcomes for VOLUME only.)

VOLUME has used JENGA's resources. No proxy value

The tight cooperation makes the valuation impossible QUALITATIVE

( (n.a.)

JENGA has a place (=VOLUME) for its participants who have special needs

JENGA has placed its´participants to VOLUME and received VOLUME´s participants. No proxy value


( (n.a.) Productive interaction

Cooperative projects have taken place. No proxy value


OUTREACHYOUTH WORK

(n.a.)



An average monthly salary of an outreach youth worker: 2058 € + public sector social fees 30 %

13 out of 75 annual clients were guided to VOLUME, most clients have 7 months customership, workers wage 2058/month, public sector social fees 30% --> calculation: 13/76 x 7 x 1,3 x 2400 € 3 736.00 €

4.7. Impact Map The impact map of VOLUME sums up the central impact chains of the most important stakeholders. The full impact map with all the necessary information for calculating the social value can be found in the Appendix.


5.1. Deadweight ”What would have happened anyway, without VOLUME?”, is the question that the concept of deadweight tries to answer. Be-cause the participants had often been in their former life situations for such a long time and there had not been much change, deadweight is considered to be relatively low. In other words, probability for a change that would have had occurred without VOLUME is small. In the following table the deadweight percentages are displayed, along with the rationales for the choices.


34

5. ESTABLISHING IMPACT This chapter describes the impact of the VOLUME when other factors that might have influenced to the changes are taken into account. The society influences individuals and individuals are influencing the society. Each of us lives in his or her own unique life situation: with his or her own background networks and resources. In society there are also other institutional mechanisms that affect the same factors that VOLUME tries to make a change in. For these reasons all the positive and negative changes can´t be considered to be a result of the VOLUME activities. Deadweight, attribution and displacement are the three main factors that may have influenced VOLUME´s outcomes in one way or another. Because this is an evaluative report and looks back at the outcomes of year 2014, or a maximum of one year, we haven´t focused on drop-off. 5.1. Deadweight ”What would have happened anyway, without VOLUME?”, is the question that the concept of deadweight tries to answer. Because the participants had often been in their former life situations for such a long time and there had not been much change, deadweight is considered to be relatively low. In other words, probability for a change that would have had occurred without VOLUME is small. In the following table the deadweight percentages are displayed, along with the rationales for the choices.

STAKE-HOLDER OUTCOME INDICATOR

DEAD-WEIGHT RATIONALE

Fewer visits at the psychiatric policlinic 0 %

One participant and the psychiatric nurse said that, because of volume, there was no longer need for treatment meetings.


Reduced number of inpatient treatment nights 0 %

The participants' life situations had been similar for such a long time, that the probability that the change would have happened without VOLUME is minimal.


Reduced number of visits to the health center 0 %

The participants are feeling physically better. Many of them have less headaches and sickness. The use of health services has clearly reduced at same that their life has become more active.


The reduction in the amount of working hours that the employment unit coordinator uses for supporting the participants to run their daily errands 10 %

Online video gaming (with video meeting softaware) or spontaneous meetings with some friends could have caused a change in the social skills.


Number of participants who have found employment 10 %

Most of the participants don´t have work experience. They went to VOLUME because they were afraid and not motivated to use other services (employment office, workshops etc.). On the other hand relatives or the municipality could have helped them somehow.

PART-ICIPANTS


The change (reduction) in time used with the computer 0 %

There are few as easy, popular and satisfying ("quick fix") activities as the use of computer. The participants’ computer use has been abundant. The probability for the decrease in computer time without VOLUME would have been small.

”VOLUME helps people to overcome loneliness.

- Participant -


28

5.2. DisplacementThe purpose of displacement is to examine if there are any activities or services that VOLUME is displacing. Since in Kerava there has not been much activity in the field of ”low threshold work training”, displacement has a low impact on most of the outcomes. On the other hand, the outreach youth worker has been in contact with these young people before, so she could have had provided some kind of help. The project is made possible through an active cooperation with other stakeholders, so often instead of displacement VOLUME makes the work of other organizations more effective.


35

OUT-REACH YOUTH WORK


The outreach youth worker uses less working hours for supporting the participants. 5 %

The youth worker has so many young to take care of that the probability for this kind of change was very small. There are no other organizations in Kerava who could have taken care of this target group.

5.2. Displacement The purpose of displacement is to examine if there are any activities or services that VOLUME is displacing. Since in Kerava there has not been much activity in the field of ”low threshold work training”, displacement has a low impact on most of the outcomes. On the other hand, the outreach youth worker has been in contact with these young people before, so she could have had provided some kind of help. The project is made possible through an active cooperation with other stakeholders, so often instead of displacement VOLUME makes the work of other organizations more effective.


DISPLACE- MENT RATIONALE


In Finland there is a great general need for public psychiatric treatment and the resources are limited. If there were a few clients less, other people would take their place.



There is a great general need for public psychiatric treatment and the resources are limited. If there were a few clients less, other people would take their place



The increased wellbeing and diminished use of doctoral services is not directly away from other stakeholders.



Before VOLUME the respondents barely had had any interaction with other people. They considered that their social skills were enhanced only because of VOLUME.



If the participants would have some advantages in the job market compared to other young people the displacement would be higher. Because most of them don´t have work experience, the displacement is zero.

PART-ICIPANTS



The decreased use of computer does not displace other people or organizations. Internet shopping is not considered because most of the web based film and gaming companies don´t pay taxes to Finland.



The outreach youth worker uses less working hours for supporting the participants. 5 %

VOLUME does not solve the resource challenge the Outreach Youth work is facing. The city would maybe have put some extra resources to youth work without VOLUME, but we understand this to be unlikely.


5.3. AttributionAttribution is a description of the other organizations or people who may have influenced the change. All the stakeholders agreed that VOLUME fills a gap in the services by helping the participants that no other stakeholders manages to take care of properly. Even if these persons are reached, there are often no resources to support them on a regular basis. The fact that the respondents´ situation had maintained the same or become worse during the previous years confirms this. For these reasons also the attribu-tion can be seen as relatively low, as depicted in the table below.


36

5.3. Attribution Attribution is a description of the other organizations or people who may have influenced the change. All the stakeholders agreed that VOLUME fills a gap in the services by helping the participants that no other stakeholders manages to take care of properly. Even if these persons are reached, there are often no resources to support them on a regular basis. The fact that the respondents´ situation had maintained the same or become worse during the previous years confirms this. For these reasons also the attribution can be seen as relatively low, as depicted in the table below.


ATTRIBUT- ION RATIONALE


Due to the social exclusion and lack of social meeting places, the chances for finding a supporting community were minimal.



The participants don´t have so many persons in their life who could have listened or helped them.



Before coming to VOLUME, the participants felt worse and worse.



The social skills could have become better in shops, bars and public transport. There could had been some good and encouraging meetings with other people, because many participants had friends (even though they didn´t meet them so often).



There are no other organizations in Kerava that would provide similar kind of individual coaching and work training for free. The participants found it too hard to go to JENGA.

PART-ICIPANTS



The amount of computer playing had in average reduced as much as the participants spend time in VOLUME. Because their social life was mostly in the internet, the probability is minimal.




20 %

VOLUME project was financed mostly with money from the European Social Fund. In 2014 there weren´t other projects in Kerava area that could have relieved the situation.


30

5.4. Total ImpactThe following table sums up VOLUME´s impact. The total value of monetizable impact is 148 500 €.


37

5.4. Total Impact The following table sums up VOLUME´s impact. The total value of monetizable impact is 134 316 €.

STAKE-HOLDER

OUTCOME GROUP OUTCOME VALUE

Dead- weight

Dis-place-ment

Attri-bution

IMPACT

PART-ICIPANTS


Fewer!visits!at!the!psychiatric!policlinic (5(060,00(€( 0(% 0(% 0(% !5!060!€!

Reduced!number!of!inpatient!treatment!nights (37(620,00(€( 0(% 0(% 0(% !37!620!€!

BETTER DAILY RHYTHM AND LIFE SKILLS

Reduced!number!of!visits!to!the!health!center (5(159,00(€( 0(% 0(% 0(% !5!159!€!

Improved!everyday!skills!as!reported!by!the!participants. QUALITATIVE

( ( (

!


"Normalized"!daily!rhythm!as!reported!by!the!participants QUALITATIVE ( ( ( ! The!reduction!in!the!amount!of!working!hours!that!the!employment!unit!coordinator!uses!for!supporting!the!participants!to!run!their!daily!errands (24(840,00(€( 10(% 0(% 5(% !21!238!€!


Whether!participants!report!having!new!friends. QUALITATIVE ( ( ( ! Number!of!participants!who!have!found!employment (70(195,00(€( 10(% 0(% 0(% !63!176!€! Whether!participants!report!increased!motivation QUALITATIVE

( ( ( !

Whether!participants!report!having!made!new!plans!for!their!future QUALITATIVE ( ( ( !

REDUCT-ION IN ADDICTIVE BEHAV-IOUR

The!change!(reduction)!in!time!used!with!the!computer (13(550,00(€( 0(% 0(% 0(% !13!550!€!

FRIENDS AND FAMILY (n.a.)

The!participants!reports,!and!the!number!of!visits!to!the!youth!substance!stop ("QUALITATIVE"(

( ( ( !

COACHES (n.a.)

Whether!the!participants)report!that!there!has!been!changes!in!the!relationships QUALITATIVE

( ( ( !

JENGA

(n.a.)

Whether!the!coaches!report!that!they!enjoy!working!in!VOLUME QUALITATIVE ( ( ( !

(n.a.) VOLUME!has!used!JENGA's!resources. QUALITATIVE ( ( ( !

(n.a.)

JENGA!has!placed!it’s!participants!to!VOLUME!and!received!VOLUME´s!participants. QUALITATIVE ( ( ( !


6. CALCULATING THE SOCIAL VALUE6.1. Calculation of the Social Return on InvestmentThe SROI ratio can be calculated by dividing the total value of benefits (148 500 €) by the value of total investment. In VOL-UME´s case the total investment 113 325 is 12/14 of the whole budged 132 212 €.

According to the SROI ratio VOLUME produces about 1,31 € of financialized value for every 1 € invested. The qualitative value that VOLUME produces comes on top of the monetized value.

6.2. Sensitivity AnalysisThe idea in sensitivity analysis is to test how much the different assumptions made during the SROI calculation procedure may have affected the results. Various alternative scenarios are testable by giving new values for selected parameters. As indicated by the table, the range of possible values for the SROI ratio is 1,21–1,7 with the alternative scenarios studied.

As a part of our sensitivity analysis we want to remind the reader that we´ve used the principles of prudence, all the outcomes haven´t been valued and all the stakeholders haven´t been included. For example the neighbors of the local area, library and local cafeterias that cooperate a little with VOLUME are not included. During 2014 there were also 5 trainees so the project has had impact also for the local schools and employment unit.

SROI RATIO of VOLUME= 148 500 €

113 325 €= 1,31 €


32


39

INDICATOR BASELINE ASSUMPTION ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO SROI RATIO

The reduced number of inpatient treatment nights

14 % of the participants stayed 2 weeks

20 % of the participants had been in inpatient treatment. The coaches and other stakeholders said that the young persons were feeling mentally worse and worse before. 1,44 €: 1 €

Increased level of energy and independence

42 % of the participants had 2,4 doctor visits/ year less than before.

The participants’ estimate is too big. Only 30 % have reduced the number of visits with 2,4 visits per year and they did not meet a doctor, but a nurse. Cost: 69 € instead of 132 € / visit. 1,28 €: 1 €


The employment unit was able to invest 3 hours and 50 minutes less time for 30 participants per. month

The actual time invested to the participants has reduced for only 1 hour and 50 minutes. 1,21 €: 1 €

Increased ability to work 1+3 participants got a job

2 participants found job from the private sector and 3 from JENGA. Situation in September. 1,7 €: 1 €

Clearly reduced use of the computer

26 h/ week/ person. The monetary value = 1 €/ hour

The new price 1,5 €/ hour -> 9 €/ day. The reimbursement of travel costs, which the youngsters get from the state for visiting in VOLUME is 9€/ day. 1,37 €: 1 €

Reduced use of alcohol and drugs Qualitative

According to The National Heath Institutes estimation, a drug user costs 21 000 € a year for the society. To avoid double accounting, we use 50 % of this value, 10 500 €. Two persons stopped using drugs: 21 000 € 1,5 €: 1 €

More resources to other young persons

The youth worker used 20 % of her working time during 7 months into other people because 16 persons were quided to VOLUME (the calculation was done with 13 participants)

The calculation is done with 16 participants. 1,32 €: 1 €

As a part of our sensitivity analysis we want to remind the reader that we´ve used the principles of prudence, all the outcomes haven´t been valued and all the stakeholders haven´t been included. For example the neighbors of the local area, library and local cafeterias that cooperate a little with VOLUME are not included. During 2014 there were also 5 trainees so the project has had impact also for the local schools and employment unit. 7. CONCLUSIONS In this report we have made an evaluation of the VOLUME project in the municipality of Kerava, Finland. As a part of the youth services in Kerava VOLUME offers low threshold activities for


7. CONCLUSIONSIn this report we have made an evaluation of the VOLUME project in the municipality of Kerava, Finland. As a part of the youth services in Kerava VOLUME offers low threshold activities for young unemployed persons using creative methods and individual coaching. The evaluation has been made using the Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology.

The analysis has demonstrated the social impact that VOLUME has had during it´s first year 2014. VOLUME has both qual-itative and monetizable, financial outcomes for the society and for several stakeholders. To the extent that the impacts were monetizable, the analysis produced the SROI ratio of 1,31:1. Every euro invested pays back 1,31 euros in monetizable social benefits. When the assumptions behind the calculations were studied in sensitivity analysis, the range of plausible SROI ratio varied between 1,21–1,7.

The aim of the analysis was credibility and therefore the SROI analysis was rather conservative and impacts were not monetized on light grounds, but evidence was looked for and the principle of prudentiality followed. Besides the monetizable outcomes that the SROI ratio reflects, VOLUME produces sizable benefits the value of which can only be assessed in a qualitative fashion.

All things considered, the most interesting impacts that have taken place are the changes in the lives of the participating youth: they have experienced various positive changes. A better mental health, clearly diminished addictive behavior, enhanced social skills and relations and better daily rhythm are some of the core effects.

One participant found work after VOLUME and five continued in JENGA, of which three got a job from JENGA. Three VOL-UME participants were studying in vocational education, nine in VOLUME +6Db and one participated in volunteer work. This shows that VOLUME participation may have effects also on the longer run — we have to remember that these youth were in many senses in a “bad shape” when they entered VOLUME, so it is reasonable to assume that VOLUME had role in pushing them forward or at least keeping them active.

What about the future of the participating youth? The Institute for Employment Studies in UK includes in their list of core soft outcomes the following: key working skills (e.g team working problem solving), attitude skills (e.g. motivation, self esteem), per-sonal skills (e.g. attendance, health) and practical skills (e.g. ability to write a CV and complete forms). These kinds of outcomes have all been produced by VOLUME. “Soft outcomes” cannot be easily quantified and measured but they for example indicate the progress towards employability. They represent the kinds of skills that the participants will be needing for the rest of their lives.

Many respondents have made new plans for their future and some said that their hope had returned. An important thing is, that they´ve gone through a tough period and survived. They´ve learned how it is possible to overcome obstacles with the help of other people. Hopefully they can use this experience and their time in VOLUME as a strength when they meet new challenges.

Even though the projects has helped many of the young, 7 of VOLUME’s participants had dropped out of the project in 2014. According to the coaches these participants often had problems with adapting to the rules. Some were using drugs and refused to stop even though VOLUME is a narcotic free area. Other participants had so severe mental health problems that they found it too difficult to engage in the activities. In the new VOLUME +6 dB project this is taken into account. Instead of focusing only on unemployed young people, the new project has a wider target group: unemployed and young people who have mental health problems.


34

As for the verification of the results, we have discussed the results with VOLUME´s personnel. Also a seminar with some of the stakeholders was arranged on 7.10.2015. Following persons were present in the seminar:

- Two of the interviewed participants and several new ones- One of the interviewed coaches and two new coaches- The responsible instructor of JENGA and JENGA´ s other personal- The leader of the youth services and the project coordinator of VOLUME

The participants gave comments on the counting procedures, results and central findings. Some procedures and for example some deadweight and attribution numbers were changed after this seminar. Before the publication of the report the results were also presented to the city council of Kerava. Both the seminar and the this presentations were made in order to both present the results but also to assess the credibility of the SROI results. The results of a SROI analysis need to be reported and embedded. Otherwise their potential is not used to the full. Firstly, the results ought to be used in managing and (re)directing the VOLUME project in the future. In an optimal situation and with the financial means at disposal the SROI-report should be repeated, say, in two years time and the new results compared with the previous ones to see, if any progress has been made. Secondly, the results must made public to convince the public and the authorities that the activity is useful. Thirdly, the results can be used for obtaining funding. VOLUME +6 dB has been funded for 2015–2016, but after that the situation is again open.

Conducting the SROI calculation of the VOLUME projects has been an interesting learning process. We hope that this report can be useful for the funders and professionals who are working with young people who are or face the risk of becoming socially excluded.

This report can be downloaded from the webpage of the Sosped Foundation, www.sosped.fi/en/.


LITERATUREAaltonen, Sanna & Berg, Päivi & Ikäheimo, Salla (2015): Nuoret luukulla: kolme näkökulmaa syrjäytymiseen ja nuorten asemaan palvelujärjestelmässä. Nuorisotutkimusverkosto/Nuorisotutkimusseura. Helsinki: Unigrafia.

Dewson, Sara; Eccles, Judith; Tackey, Nii Djan & Jackson, Annabel (2000): Measuring soft outcomes and distance travelled. Insti-tute for employment studies. Brighton.

Helsingin ja uudenmaan sairaanhoitopiiri (HUS) Palveluhinnasto 2014

Myrskylä, Pekka (2012): Hukassa – keitä ovat syrjäytyneet nuoret. Helsinki: EVA.

Määttä, Mirja & Määttä, Anne; toim. (2015): Parempia ratkaisuja koulutuksen ja työn ulkopuolella olevien nuorten tukemiseen. Valtion selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminnan julkaisusarja 16/2015. Valtioneuvoston selvitys- ja tutkimustoiminta. Helsinki: Valtio-neuvosto. URL: http://vnk.fi/valtioneuvoston-selvitys-ja-tutkimustoiminta/julkaisut

New Economics Foundation (2008): Measuring value: a guide to Social Return on Investment (SROI). Second edition. London: New Economics Foundation.

Nicholls, Jeremy & Lawlor, Eilis & Neitzert, Eva & Goodspeed, Tim (2009): A guide to Social Return on Investment. London: Cabinet office, Office of the Third Sector.

VOLUME (2015): Projektin loppuraportti toimintavuodelta 2014.


36

SR

OI e

valu

atio

n of

the

VO

LUM

E pr

ojec

t 43

APP

END

IX: I

MPA

CT

MA

P ST

AKEH

OLD

ER

INPU

TS

OU

TPU

TS

OU

TCO

ME

GRO

UP

OU

TCO

MES

PAR

TIC

IPA

NTS

Tim

e

Impr

oved

men

tal h

ealth

Pa

rtici

patin

g in

VO

LUM

E´s w

orks

hops

and

dai

ly ta

sks s

uch

as c

lean

ing,

coo

king

, etc

. IM

PRO

VED

MEN

TAL

HEA

LTH

AN

D S

ENSE

O

F EN

ERG

Y

Incr

ease

d le

vel o

f ene

rgy

with

abi

litie

s and

skill

s to

take

car

e of

one

self

Impr

oved

eve

ryda

y lif

e sk

ills

Diff

eren

t gro

up a

ctiv

ities

(dra

ma

rehe

arsa

ls, p

aint

ing,

ph

otog

raph

ing

etc.

) BE

TTER

DA

ILY

RH

YTH

M A

ND

LIF

E

SKIL

LS

Enha

nced

dai

ly rh

ythm

Visi

ts to

wor

kpla

ces,

exhi

bitio

ns e

tc.

En

hanc

ed so

cial

skill

s

BETT

ER S

OCI

AL

SKIL

LS A

ND

REL

ATI

ON

S N

ew fr

iend

s

Atte

ndin

g di

ffere

nt se

rvic

es th

at su

ppor

t VO

LUM

E's g

oals

In

crea

sed

abili

ty to

wor

k

Incr

ease

d m

otiv

atio

n

BE

TTER

SK

ILLS

FO

R ST

UD

Y A

ND

WO

RK

Clea

rer p

lans

for t

he fu

ture

Redu

ced

use

of c

ompu

ter

RE

DU

CTIO

N IN

AD

DIC

TIV

E BE

HA

VIO

UR

Redu

ced

use

of a

lcoh

ol a

nd d

rugs

FRIE

ND

S A

ND

FA

MIL

Y

Tim

e So

cial

inte

ract

ion

(n.a

.)

Mor

e in

tera

ctio

n an

d be

tter r

elat

ions

hip

with

the

clos

e on

es (p

artic

ipan

ts) a

nd a

redu

ced

wor

ry fo

r th

em.

CO

AC

HES

W

ork

effo

rt O

rgan

izin

g, c

oach

ing,

wor

k tra

inin

g, 3

7,5

hour

s a w

eek

(n.a

.) Se

nse

of m

eani

ngfu

lnes

s at w

ork

JEN

GA

Giv

es a

cces

s to

JEN

GA

's re

sour

ces.

Reso

urce

s suc

h as

wor

ksho

p, c

ompu

ters

and

soci

al fa

cilit

ies

(n.a

.) (O

utco

mes

for V

OLU

ME

only

.) Se

nds y

oung

peo

ple

to V

OLU

ME

(and

rece

ives

VO

LUM

E pa

rtici

pant

s)

"Out

put"

=par

ticip

ants

(n.a

.) JE

NG

A h

as a

pla

ce (=

VO

LUM

E) fo

r its

parti

cipa

nts w

ho h

ave

spec

ial n

eeds

Pa

rtner

ship

in c

oope

ratio

n Co

oper

atio

n (n

.a.)

Prod

uctiv

e in

tera

ctio

n

OU

TREA

CH

Y

OU

TH W

OR

K

Send

s you

ng p

eopl

e to

VO

LUM

E

"Out

put"

=par

ticip

ants

(in 2

014

16 o

ut 7

5 cl

ient

s of O

utre

ach

sent

to V

OLU

ME)

(n

.a.)

Mor

e re

sour

ces t

o ot

her y

oung

peo

ple


SR

OI e

valu

atio

n of

the

VO

LUM

E pr

ojec

t 44

ST

AK

EHO

LDER

O

UTC

OM

ES

IND

ICA

TOR

S Q

UA

NTI

TY

PRO

XY

PAR

TIC

IPA

NTS

Impr

oved

men

tal h

ealth

Few

er v

isits

at th

e ps

ychi

atric

pol

iclin

ic

2 pa

rtici

pant

s alto

geth

er

Firs

t visi

t at t

he p

olic

linic

á 2

90 €

, sub

sequ

ent v

isits

á 14

0 €

Redu

ced

num

ber o

f inp

atie

nt tr

eatm

ent n

ight

s 1/

7 pa

rtici

pant

in in

terv

. 24

hou

rs o

f inp

atie

nt tr

eatm

ent i

n Pe

ijas H

ospi

tal,

495 €

In

crea

sed

leve

l of e

nerg

y w

ith

abili

ties a

nd sk

ills t

o ta

ke c

are

of

ones

elf

Redu

ced

num

ber o

f visi

ts to

the

heal

th c

ente

r 3/

7 pa

rtici

pant

s in

inte

rv.

A v

isit a

t a d

octo

r in

the

mun

icip

ality

of K

erav

a he

alth

cen

ter,

á 13

2 €

. Im

prov

ed e

very

day

life

skill

s Im

prov

ed e

very

day

life

skill

s as r

epor

ted

by th

e pa

rtici

pant

s. –

No

prox

y va

lue

Enha

nced

dai

ly rh

ythm

"N

orm

aliz

ed" d

aily

rhyt

hm a

s rep

orte

d by

the

parti

cipa

nts

– N

o pr

oxy

valu

e

Enha

nced

soci

al sk

ills

The

redu

ctio

n in

the

amou

nt o

f wor

king

hou

rs th

at th

e em

ploy

men

t un

it co

ordi

nato

r use

s for

supp

ortin

g th

e pa

rtici

pant

s to

run

thei

r dai

ly

erra

nds

7/7

in in

terv

. but

cal

cula

ted

for 1

"oth

er" s

take

hold

er

An

estim

atio

n of

a c

oord

inat

or´s

hou

rly w

age:

20 €

(inc

lude

s all

costs

)

New

frie

nds

Whe

ther

par

ticip

ants

repo

rt ha

ving

new

frie

nds.

– N

o pr

oxy

valu

e

Incr

ease

d ab

ility

to w

ork

Num

ber o

f par

ticip

ants

who

hav

e fo

und

empl

oym

ent

4 pa

rtici

pant

s alto

geth

er

Cash

ier m

inim

um w

age

in F

inla

nd, 1

750 €

+ so

cial

fees

27%

Je

nga

sala

ry 1

428 €

+ so

cial

fees

27%

Incr

ease

d m

otiv

atio

n W

heth

er p

artic

ipan

ts re

port

incr

ease

d m

otiv

atio

n –

Cl

eare

r pla

ns fo

r the

futu

re

Whe

ther

par

ticip

ants

repo

rt ha

ving

mad

e ne

w p

lans

for t

heir

futu

re

– N

o pr

oxy

valu

e

Redu

ced

use

of c

ompu

ter

The

chan

ge (r

educ

tion)

in ti

me

used

with

the

com

pute

r 6/

7 pa

rtici

pant

s in

inte

rv.

The

valu

e of

doi

ng so

met

hing

"mor

e m

eani

ngfu

l" (g

roup

pa

rtici

patio

n) in

stead

of u

sing

com

pute

r: 1 €

/ h

Redu

ced

use

of a

lcoh

ol a

nd d

rugs

Th

e pa

rtici

pant

s rep

orts,

and

the

num

ber o

f visi

ts to

the

yout

h su

bsta

nce

stop

– N

o pr

oxy

valu

e

FRIE

ND

S A

ND

FA

MIL

Y

Mor

e in

tera

ctio

n an

d be

tter

rela

tions

hip

with

the

clos

e on

es

(par

ticip

ants)

and

a re

duce

d w

orry

fo

r the

m.

Whe

ther

the

part

icip

ants

repo

rt th

at th

ere

has b

een

chan

ges i

n th

e re

latio

nshi

ps

– N

o pr

oxy

valu

e

CO

AC

HES

Se

nse

of m

eani

ngfu

lnes

s at w

ork

Whe

ther

the

coac

hes r

epor

t tha

t the

y en

joy

wor

king

in V

OLU

ME

– N

o pr

oxy

valu

e

JEN

GA

(Out

com

es fo

r VO

LUM

E on

ly.)

VO

LUM

E ha

s use

d JE

NG

A's

reso

urce

s. –

No

prox

y va

lue

JEN

GA

has

a p

lace

(=V

OLU

ME)

fo

r its

parti

cipa

nts w

ho h

ave

spec

ial

need

s JE

NG

A h

as p

lace

d it’

s par

ticip

ants

to V

OLU

ME

and

rece

ived

V

OLU

ME´

s par

ticip

ants.

–

No

prox

y va

lue

Prod

uctiv

e in

tera

ctio

n Co

oper

ativ

e pr

ojec

ts ha

ve ta

ken

plac

e.

– N

o pr

oxy

valu

e

OU

TREA

CH

Y

OU

TH W

OR

K

Mor

e re

sour

ces t

o ot

her y

oung

pe

ople

Th

e ou

treac

h yo

uth

wor

ker u

ses l

ess w

orki

ng h

ours

for s

uppo

rting

th

e pa

rtici

pant

s. 1

outre

ach

yout

h w

orke

r A

n av

erag

e m

onth

ly sa

lary

of a

n ou

treac

h yo

uth

wor

ker:

2058

€ +

pu

blic

sect

or so

cial

fees

30

%


38

SR

OI e

valu

atio

n of

the

VO

LUM

E pr

ojec

t 45

ST

AKEH

OLD

ER

OU

TCO

MES

IN

DIC

ATO

RS

CALC

ULA

TIO

N

C

alcu

late

d va

lue

PAR

TIC

IPA

NTS

Impr

oved

men

tal h

ealth

Few

er v

isits

at th

e ps

ychi

atric

pol

iclin

ic

Two

pers

ons,

one

treat

men

t eve

ry th

ird w

eek

durin

g 12

mon

ths -

-> 5

2/3

≈ 1

7 tre

atm

ents,

i.e.

firs

t vi

sit +

16

subs

eque

nt v

isits

--> c

alcu

latio

n: 2

x [2

90€

+ (1

6 x

140€

)]

5 0

60.0

0 €

Redu

ced

num

ber o

f inp

atie

nt tr

eatm

ent n

ight

s 1

out o

f 7 in

sam

ple,

14%

of 3

6 ≈

5 pa

rtici

pant

s, tw

o w

eeks

in in

patie

nt tr

eatm

ent,

24 h

of t

reat

men

t co

sts 4

95€

-->

calc

ulat

ion:

(1/7

x 3

8) x

(14

x 49

5€)

3

7 62

0.00

€

Incr

ease

d le

vel o

f ene

rgy

with

abi

litie

s and

skill

s to

take

car

e of

one

self

Redu

ced

num

ber o

f visi

ts to

the

heal

th c

ente

r 3

out o

f 7 in

sam

ple,

43%

of 3

8 ≈

15 p

artic

ipan

ts ha

d de

crea

sed

thei

r visi

ts at

the

heal

th c

ente

r with

2,

4 vi

sits/y

ear,

the

cost

of v

isit 1

32 -

-> c

alcu

latio

n: [(

3/7

x 38

) x (2

,4 x

132€

)]

5 1

59.0

0 €

Impr

oved

eve

ryda

y lif

e sk

ills

Impr

oved

eve

ryda

y sk

ills a

s rep

orte

d by

the

parti

cipa

nts.

Val

uing

eve

ryda

y lif

e sk

ills i

s too

inac

cura

te a

nd n

on-c

redi

ble

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

Enha

nced

dai

ly rh

ythm

"N

orm

aliz

ed" d

aily

rhyt

hm a

s rep

orte

d by

the

parti

cipa

nts

Lack

of c

redi

ble

indi

cato

rs +

dep

ende

nce

on th

e ot

her o

utco

mes

Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

Enha

nced

soci

al sk

ills

The

redu

ctio

n in

the

amou

nt o

f wor

king

hou

rs

that

the

empl

oym

ent u

nit c

oord

inat

or u

ses f

or

supp

ortin

g th

e pa

rtici

pant

s to

run

thei

r dai

ly

erra

nds

The

coor

dina

tor u

ses n

ow 3

h a

nd 5

0 m

in le

ss ti

me

for i

ndiv

idua

l par

ticip

ants

mon

thly

, 27

pers

ons,

dura

tion

12 m

onth

s, w

age

20€

/h --

> ca

lcul

atio

n: 2

7 x

12 x

3 5

0/60

x 2

0€

24

840.

00 €

New

frie

nds

Whe

ther

par

ticip

ants

repo

rt ha

ving

new

frie

nds.

Lack

of c

redi

ble

indi

cato

rs +

dep

ende

nce

on th

e ot

her o

utco

mes

Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

Incr

ease

d ab

ility

to w

ork

Num

ber o

f par

ticip

ants

who

hav

e fo

und

empl

oym

ent

One

par

ticip

ant f

ound

a jo

b in

the

open

mar

ket a

nd th

ree

starte

d to

wor

k in

JEN

GA

(cal

cula

tion

with

two

pers

ons)

. 12

mon

ths,

soci

al fe

es 2

7% --

> ca

lcul

atio

n: 1

2 x1

,27

x1 7

50€

+ 2

x 1

2 x

1428€

7

0, 1

95.0

0 €

In

crea

sed

mot

ivat

ion

Whe

ther

par

ticip

ants

repo

rt in

crea

sed

mot

ivat

ion

A su

bjec

tive

expe

rienc

e an

d tig

htly

link

ed to

oth

er o

utco

mes

Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

Clea

rer p

lans

for t

he fu

ture

W

heth

er p

artic

ipan

ts re

port

havi

ng m

ade

new

pl

ans f

or th

eir f

utur

e A

subj

ectiv

e ex

perie

nce

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

Redu

ced

use

of c

ompu

ter

The

chan

ge (r

educ

tion)

in ti

me

used

with

the

com

pute

r 6

out o

f 7 in

sam

ple,

86%

of 3

8 ≈

33 p

erso

ns, r

educ

ed u

sing

of c

ompu

ter a

n av

erag

e of

26

hour

s/wee

k/pe

rson

for 4

mon

ths,

1 €

/ h --

> ca

lcul

atio

n: 6

/7 x

38

x 16

x 2

6 x

1€

13

550.

00 €

Re

duce

d us

e of

alc

ohol

and

dr

ugs

The

parti

cipa

nts r

epor

ts, a

nd th

e nu

mbe

r of v

isits

to th

e yo

uth

subs

tanc

e sto

p (L

eft o

ut o

f cal

cula

tion.

A c

ost i

n th

e sh

ort r

un, a

ben

efit

in th

e lo

ng ru

n, b

ut d

iffic

ult t

o m

onet

ize.

) "Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E"

FRIE

ND

S A

ND

FA

MIL

Y

Mor

e in

tera

ctio

n an

d be

tter

rela

tions

hip

with

the

clos

e on

es (p

artic

ipan

ts) a

nd a

re

duce

d w

orry

for t

hem

. W

heth

er th

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts re

port

that

ther

e ha

s be

en c

hang

es in

the

rela

tions

hips

A

subj

ectiv

e ex

perie

nce

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

CO

AC

HES

Se

nse

of m

eani

ngfu

lnes

s at

wor

k W

heth

er th

e co

ache

s rep

ort t

hat t

hey

enjo

y w

orki

ng in

VO

LUM

E A

subj

ectiv

e ex

perie

nce

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

JEN

GA

(Out

com

es fo

r VO

LUM

E on

ly.)

VO

LUM

E ha

s use

d JE

NG

A's

reso

urce

s. Th

e tig

ht c

oope

ratio

n m

akes

the

valu

atio

n im

poss

ible

Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E JE

NG

A h

as a

pla

ce

(=V

OLU

ME)

for i

ts pa

rtici

pant

s who

hav

e sp

ecia

l ne

eds

JEN

GA

has

pla

ced

it’s p

artic

ipan

ts to

VO

LUM

E an

d re

ceiv

ed V

OLU

ME´

s par

ticip

ants.

Th

e tig

ht c

oope

ratio

n m

akes

the

valu

atio

n im

poss

ible

Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

Prod

uctiv

e in

tera

ctio

n Co

oper

ativ

e pr

ojec

ts ha

ve ta

ken

plac

e.

The

tight

coo

pera

tion

mak

es th

e va

luat

ion

impo

ssib

le

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

OU

TREA

CH

Y

OU

TH W

OR

K

Mor

e re

sour

ces t

o ot

her

youn

g pe

ople

Th

e ou

treac

h yo

uth

wor

ker u

ses l

ess w

orki

ng

hour

s for

supp

ortin

g th

e pa

rtici

pant

s.

13 o

ut o

f 75

annu

al c

lient

s wer

e gu

ided

to

VO

LUM

E, m

ost c

usto

mer

s hav

e 7

mon

ths c

usto

mer

ship

, w

orke

rs w

age

2400

€/m

onth

, pub

lic se

ctor

soci

al fe

es 3

0% --

> ca

lcul

atio

n: 1

3/76

x 7

x 1

,3 x

240

0 €

3

736

.00 €


SR

OI e

valu

atio

n of

the

VO

LUM

E pr

ojec

t 46

160

160

€

STAK

EHO

LDER

O

UTC

OM

ES

IND

ICAT

ORS

Ca

lcul

ated

val

ue

Dea

d-

weig

ht

Disp

lac

e-m

ent

Attri

-bu

tion

IMPA

CT

PAR

TIC

IPA

NTS

Impr

oved

men

tal h

ealth

Few

er v

isits

at t

he p

sych

iatri

c po

liclin

ic

5 0

60.0

0 €

0

%

0 %

0

%

5 0

60 €

Redu

ced

num

ber o

f inp

atie

nt tr

eatm

ent n

ight

s 3

7 62

0.00

€

0 %

0

%

0 %

3

7 62

0 €

In

crea

sed

leve

l of e

nerg

y w

ith a

bilit

ies

and

skill

s to

take

car

e of

one

self

Redu

ced

num

ber o

f visi

ts to

the

heal

th c

ente

r 5

159

.00 €

0

%

0 %

0

%

5 1

59 €

Im

prov

ed e

very

day

life

skill

s Im

prov

ed e

very

day

skill

s as r

epor

ted

by th

e pa

rtici

pant

s. Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

Enha

nced

dai

ly rh

ythm

"N

orm

aliz

ed" d

aily

rhyt

hm a

s rep

orte

d by

the

parti

cipa

nts

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

Enha

nced

soci

al sk

ills

The

redu

ctio

n in

the

amou

nt o

f wor

king

hou

rs th

at th

e em

ploy

men

t uni

t co

ordi

nato

r use

s for

supp

ortin

g th

e pa

rtici

pant

s to

run

thei

r dai

ly e

rrand

s 2

4 84

0.00

€

10 %

0

%

5 %

1

4 30

8 €

N

ew fr

iend

s W

heth

er p

artic

ipan

ts re

port

havi

ng n

ew fr

iend

s. Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

Incr

ease

d ab

ility

to w

ork

Num

ber o

f par

ticip

ants

who

hav

e fo

und

empl

oym

ent

70

195.

00 €

10

%

0 %

0

%

63

176 €

In

crea

sed

mot

ivat

ion

Whe

ther

par

ticip

ants

repo

rt in

crea

sed

mot

ivat

ion

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

Clea

rer p

lans

for t

he fu

ture

W

heth

er p

artic

ipan

ts re

port

havi

ng m

ade

new

pla

ns fo

r the

ir fu

ture

Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

Redu

ced

use

of c

ompu

ter

The

chan

ge (r

educ

tion)

in ti

me

used

with

the

com

pute

r 1

3 55

0.00

€

0 %

0

%

0 %

1

3 55

0 €

Redu

ced

use

of a

lcoh

ol a

nd d

rugs

Th

e pa

rtici

pant

s rep

orts,

and

the

num

ber o

f visi

ts to

the

yout

h su

bsta

nce

stop

"QU

ALI

TATI

VE

"

FRIE

ND

S A

ND

FA

MIL

Y

Mor

e in

tera

ctio

n an

d be

tter r

elat

ions

hip

with

the

clos

e on

es (p

artic

ipan

ts) a

nd a

re

duce

d w

orry

for t

hem

. W

heth

er th

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts re

port

that

ther

e ha

s bee

n ch

ange

s in

the

rela

tions

hips

Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

CO

AC

HES

Se

nse

of m

eani

ngfu

lnes

s at w

ork

Whe

ther

the

coac

hes r

epor

t tha

t the

y en

joy

wor

king

in V

OLU

ME

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

JEN

GA

(Out

com

es fo

r VO

LUM

E on

ly.)

VO

LUM

E ha

s use

d JE

NG

A's

reso

urce

s. Q

UA

LITA

TIV

E

JE

NG

A h

as a

pla

ce (=

VO

LUM

E) fo

r its

pa

rtici

pant

s who

hav

e sp

ecia

l nee

ds

JEN

GA

has

pla

ced

it’s p

artic

ipan

ts to

VO

LUM

E an

d re

ceiv

ed

VO

LUM

E´s p

artic

ipan

ts.

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

Prod

uctiv

e in

tera

ctio

n Co

oper

ativ

e pr

ojec

ts ha

ve ta

ken

plac

e.

QU

ALI

TATI

VE

OU

TREA

CH

Y

OU

TH W

OR

K

Mor

e re

sour

ces t

o ot

her y

oung

peo

ple

The

outre

ach

yout

h w

orke

r use

s les

s wor

king

hou

rs fo

r sup

porti

ng th

e pa

rtici

pant

s. 3

736

.00 €

5

%

5 %

20

%

2 6

97 €

1

60 1

60 €

148

500

€

Sosped säätiö | Stiftelsen Sosped | Sosped Foundationwww.sosped.fi

Documents

CALCULATING THE SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE VOLUME PROJECT …€¦ · Sosped Foundation in Finland was founded in 1984 and is today working with several target groups by providing and developing