Decide whether monetary valuation helps your report. Check outcomes, proxies and assumptions before turning evidence into a dollar figure.
A monetary impact estimate is credible when the outcome is defined, the evidence and valuation method fit the people and context, and the assumptions are open to review. A published proxy is a starting point, not automatic approval. If the evidence cannot support a value, report the outcome and the gap rather than filling the blank with a plausible dollar figure.
This is chapter 15 of the Impact Measurement & Reporting course. You have already drafted and checked a report from approved evidence. Now decide whether valuation would help the reader make a better decision. Leave this lesson with a short valuation brief: the decision, stakeholder, outcome, evidence, candidate method and unresolved questions.
Ask the reader what they need the figure for. Comparing delivery options, deciding where to investigate costs and benefits, and planning a future service are different tasks. “Make the report more impressive” is not a useful analytical purpose.
A monetary estimate can bring an overlooked outcome into a resource discussion. It cannot replace listening to the people affected. Social Value International’s guidance on valuing what matters places stakeholders’ preferences at the center of understanding the relative importance of outcomes. It distinguishes financial approximations from other ways of weighting that importance.
Write a decision question before looking for a proxy. For example: “Would reducing travel demands address an important burden on participants?” That question first requires evidence about the burden and its significance. Finding a monetary value for travel time does not answer those questions on its own.
You do not have to monetize every impact report. An account of measured outcomes, negative experiences, costs and remaining uncertainty may be enough for the decision at hand.
For an SROI analysis, distinguish an evaluative study of outcomes that have occurred from a forecast of expected outcomes under stated assumptions. Social Value International’s Guide to SROI makes this distinction. A pilot can use a forecast for planning; it should not present forecast value as an achieved result.
These are choices about the analysis, not judgments about whether the work matters. An outcome without an adequate monetary proxy can still be material and should remain visible.
A financial proxy is a monetary approximation used to represent an outcome’s value. It needs a defined unit: per person, per event, per hour or per year, for example. The source must explain whose value is being represented and in which context.
Do not assume that a price for something related to the outcome values the outcome itself. The cost of a course does not automatically measure the value of increased confidence. A cost of treatment is not automatically the value of improved health to a participant. A reduction in service use may represent a provider cost change, but that is a different claim from improved wellbeing.
Before using a candidate, record its population, geography, date, currency, unit, method and exclusions. Ask whether its outcome actually matches the change your participants describe. The proxy-selection lesson develops that check in detail.
Return to the fictional course cohort: 80 starters, 60 known employment statuses at 90-day follow-up and 36 people employed at that point. Those records support a description of employment status with 75% follow-up coverage. They do not establish everyone’s earnings gain, the length of employment or what would have happened without the program.
Suppose someone proposes multiplying all 36 employed participants by a full year of typical wages. Before calculating, ask these questions:
The immediate result of this exercise is “not ready for a retrospective earnings-value claim.” That is a useful finding. The next collection cycle can ask about relevant earnings changes and duration, using appropriate consent and definitions. It does not mean the program produced no value.
For planning, the team could instead build an explicitly labeled forecast with sourced assumptions and test how the result changes. Keep it separate from the observed 36-of-60 result. Do not use a forecast assumption to quietly complete an evaluative report.
| Area | Question | What to record |
|---|---|---|
| Decision | What would the estimate change? | A relevant resource or delivery question, rather than a desired headline. |
| Stakeholder and outcome | Whose change is being valued? | A specific outcome that reflects affected people’s experience. |
| Quantity and time | How much change, over what period? | Observed measures or clearly marked forecast assumptions. |
| Valuation source | Does the method fit this outcome and context? | Source, unit, population, currency, year and applicability note. |
| Contribution and overlap | What is not attributable or might be counted twice? | Documented assumptions, evidence and unresolved questions. |
| Review | Who checks the claim and its limits? | A responsible reviewer and a preserved version of the model. |
Use three plain statuses: ready for review, needs evidence and not appropriate for this claim. A traffic-light color can accompany the status, but should not be the only way to understand it. “Ready for review” means a person can examine the evidence; it does not mean independent assurance or certification.
Social Value International’s do-not-overclaim guidance addresses the need to examine what would have changed without the activity and the contribution of others. A lower estimate is not automatically a better estimate: each adjustment needs a reason.
In the SROI working model, deadweight addresses what would have happened anyway; attribution addresses others’ contribution; displacement addresses outcomes offset elsewhere. Drop-off concerns the reduction in an outcome’s continuing value in later years. It is not a synonym for people dropping out of a survey or program. Missing follow-up needs its own coverage and bias assessment.
Keep these questions separate from the choice of proxy. Reducing a mismatched proxy by an arbitrary percentage does not make it appropriate. Nor should a missing adjustment silently become zero. Mark the unresolved assumption, identify the evidence needed and test its effect on the decision.
A low, central and high scenario can show how assumptions affect a result. It does not establish the statistical probability that the true value lies inside that range. Call it a sensitivity or scenario range unless a suitable statistical method supports a confidence interval.
Choose plausible alternatives with an explicit rationale. If the conclusion changes when one weak assumption changes slightly, that tells the team where better evidence would be valuable. If the model remains favorable across the tested scenarios, explain which assumptions were tested and which were held fixed; that does not prove every uncertainty has been resolved.
Also keep adverse outcomes and possible overlap in view. A model can look reassuring because important harms were excluded or the same benefit was counted twice. A small range around an incomplete model does not make it complete.
Review whether monetary valuation would help this decision: [decision and audience]. Outcome and stakeholder: [description]. Evidence and period: [approved sources]. Identify what is observed, what would be forecast, and whether a candidate valuation method fits the outcome and stakeholder. List missing quantity, duration, proxy, contribution or overlap evidence. Do not invent values or percentages. Do not treat missing evidence as zero. Return a valuation brief with the proposed method, source references, limitations, reviewer questions and next collection step. If the claim is not ready, say what can be reported without monetization.
Open each proposed source yourself. Check that the cited value exists and that its context matches. An assistant can organize a worksheet and flag gaps; a generated source reference or a colored grade is not a substitute for that review.
The useful groundwork is often operational: keep the participant or partner record, follow-up date, source document and approved definition connected. Then a reviewer can see whether a value rests on observed outcomes, a published benchmark or an assumption.
In a configured Sopact workflow, use that connected context to prepare and review the valuation evidence. Test one outcome end to end: can you retrieve the record, identify the proxy source, inspect an adjustment and preserve the approved version? Do not assume that an automatic proxy library or complete audit history is available without checking the implementation.
The deliverable for this chapter is the brief and evidence gaps, not a headline SROI number. The next three lessons separate the value map, proxy choice and final calculation so each decision can be checked.
Watch the video · 4 minutes 13 seconds. This introduction explains the ratio, a worked calculation and why the assumptions matter. Treat the calculation as an illustration, not a proxy source for your own program. Browse the video library.
No. Keep material outcomes visible even when monetary valuation is not appropriate or sufficiently supported. Use the analysis that helps the decision, and explain what remains outside any monetary total.
It can consider a forecast based on explicit assumptions for planning. Do not present that forecast as achieved impact. An evaluative claim needs evidence of actual outcomes and a defensible valuation approach.
Record the gap. Investigate an appropriate valuation method or report the outcome without a monetary claim. A loosely related published number does not become suitable merely because it is available.
No. Relevance, method, stakeholder perspective and supporting evidence matter. An arbitrary reduction can still produce a misleading value. Explain the choice and test plausible alternatives.
No. Drop-off addresses declining continuing value in later years of an SROI model. Participant dropout or missing follow-up concerns the observed data and its coverage; assess those issues separately.
Not by itself. It shows how selected assumptions change the result. A statistical confidence interval requires an appropriate method and should not be inferred from low, central and high scenarios.
No. A social-value ratio expresses estimated social value relative to inputs under the analysis’s scope and assumptions. It is not a promise of cash repayment, financial investment return or cashable public-sector savings.
Define the decision and stakeholders, map material outcomes, check quantity and duration evidence, assess suitable valuation sources and contribution assumptions, and record unresolved gaps. Then build the working value map for review.
Next lesson: Build an SROI value map. Bring your valuation brief and keep unresolved fields visible.
If a monetary estimate does not help your current report, return to the donor-report planning lesson. You can also get the impact-report writing ebook or explore report examples.
Lesson revised September 12, 2026. The training-cohort exercise is fictional. Method references are linked where they inform the lesson; this page is not an independently assured SROI analysis.
Start with one outcome you need to explain. Define the measure, check who and what the data covers, and keep the evidence behind each claim.
Explore Impact Measurement →
