Put a Credible Dollar Value on Impact

What if a funder wants a dollar figure and you don’t have one?

You estimate it honestly: find the nearest solid evidence, use a published value where one exists, adjust it down for caution, and show every step. Done this way, a social-return figure is a defensible estimate, not a number pulled from the air. Done the lazy way, it’s the fastest way to lose the trust you built in the last two steps.

This step is optional depth. Reach for it when a funder specifically wants a return figure — and skip it when they don’t, because it adds real complexity.

An honest estimate, shown in the open

Putting a value on impact rests on two moves. First, a proxy — a stand-in dollar value for an outcome that has no price tag, like the value of a stable job or avoided emergency care. Sometimes a published proxy exists; when it doesn’t, you find the nearest evidence and estimate it, saying plainly that you did. Second, honest adjustments — you discount for what would have happened anyway, for the part you can’t claim as yours, and for people who dropped out, and you say by how much and why.

Then you show the arithmetic, and you give a range — a cautious figure, a middle one, and an optimistic one — so the funder sees the confidence, not just a headline number. A single number pretending to be precise reads as a red flag to anyone who knows the method.

When NOT to reach for this

It’s worth being blunt, because the field oversells this. A return figure adds more complexity than most teams expect, and a shaky one does more harm than none. If you’re early — a pilot, a first cohort — you’re usually better off scoring your outcomes and showing change plainly, without a dollar figure on top. And if what a funder really wants is a defensible decision rather than a ratio, give them that. A number built on thin evidence is worse than an honest “we’re not there yet.”

Try it: draft a value map

This prompt lays out the structure — outcome, proxy, source, adjustment, value — and leaves blanks where evidence is missing.

Build a value map for the outcomes below. For each: name a financial proxy and its source if a credible one exists; if not, write NEEDS PROXY. Then note the adjustments (what would have happened anyway; the share you can claim; drop-out) with a reason for each. Do not invent proxy values or fill blanks with plausible numbers. Return: Outcome · Proxy · Source · Adjustments. Outcomes: [paste from your metrics]

The blanks tell you where the real work — finding sound evidence — still needs to happen.

Where a chat tool stops

Ask a general model for a return figure and it will give you one, fast — with invented proxy values, hidden assumptions, and a different answer each time you ask. It won’t cite where a value came from, and it quietly buries the adjustments that make the estimate honest. That’s precisely the kind of number that collapses under a knowledgeable funder’s questions.

How a defensible figure gets built

In Sopact Sense the estimate is built on the traceable data from the previous steps: proxies come from a maintained library with their sources attached, and where one is missing, the gap is visible rather than papered over. The adjustments are recorded, the math is shown, and the whole calculation carries the same audit trail as every other number in your report — so the return figure is as checkable as the outcomes underneath it.

When this helps — and when it doesn’t

Use it when a funder asks for a monetized return and you have real outcome data to build on. Skip it for early pilots, thin data, or when a clear decision matters more than a ratio.

Next: Let the Assistant Write the Funder Report → · or see the value map in Sopact Sense →