Assurance and Accreditation Guidance

Assessment process used for members wishing to apply

for SROI Network report assurance and accredited
practitioner status.
 
 
Current  SROI  Network  policy  is  that  we  will  provide  assurance  that  will  test  
for  adherence  to  SROI  principles.  (Principles  based  test  only)  
 
 
 
Assurance  of  report:  this  process  seeks  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  an  application  
(comprised  of  an  Impact  map/Value  Map  and  resulting  report)  shows  a  clear  understanding  
of  the  SROI  principles.  It  is  the  report  to  which  an  assurance  statement  could  be  attached  
and  these  reports  can  be  by  more  than  one  author.  Individuals  will  not  be  able  to  derive  
Accredited  Practitioner  status  from  such  reports.  Applicants  will  need  to  ensure  that  their  
membership  is  current  and  also  will  need  to  provide  proof  that  the  permission  of  the  
organisation  to  submit  the  report  has  been  granted.  In  the  case  of  submission  of  a  report  by  
multiple  authors,  a  lead  applicant  will  be  required  through  who  all  correspondence  will  be  
conducted.  
 
 
 
Accredited  Practitioner:  this  process  will  judge  an  individual’s  understanding  of  SROI  
principles  through  a  report  of  which  the  individual  is  the  sole  author.  This  means  that  all  
decisions  taken  in  the  course  of  the  analysis  must  be  the  responsibility  of  one  person.  
Applicants  will  need  to  ensure  that  their  membership  is  current,  will  declare  that  they  are  
the  author  and  provide  proof  that  the  permission  of  the  organisation  has  been  granted  in  
submitting  the  report.  Applicants  will  also  be  required  to  submit  an  SROI  CV  showing  
relevant  experience  and  a  supporting  statement  of  current  involvement/interest  in  SROI  
(each  no  longer  than  one  side  of  A4).  In  addition  applicants  will  need  to  prove  that  they  
have  completed  approved  Practitioner  Training  before  the  date  of  their  application.  
A  successful  applicant  will  be  granted  Accredited  Practitioner  status  for  3  years.    
 
 
1|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
All  reports  will  be  assessed  using  the  guidance  in  the  following  pages  –  guidance  set  against  
each  principle.  Assessment  will  relate  to  an  Impact  Map/Value  Map  and  the  reporting  
thereon.  Multiple  impact  maps  with  a  composite  report  will  not  be  accepted  for  assessment  
without  prior  discussion  with  The  Network.  For  a  report  to  comply,  applicants  will  need  to  
ensure  that  there  is  sufficient  evidence  on  display  that  both  the  Impact/Value  Map  and  
report  meets  all  the  principles  consistent  with  the  points  listed.  Applicants  must  make  
explicit  which  type  of  SROI  analysis  is  being  forwarded  for  assessment  –  forecast  or  
evaluative  SROI.  The  result  of  an  assessor  test  will  be  as  follows:  
 
 
 
“  The  Impact  Map/  Value  Map  and  report  based  on  it  are  consistent  with  one  
another  and  contain  evidence  of  a  clear  understanding  of  all  seven  SROI  
principles”  
 
 Or:  
 
“  The  Impact  Map/Value  Map  and  report  based  on  it  do  not  yet  sufficiently  
adhere  to  SROI  principles”.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
1. Involving stakeholders

The important thing here is to test for a comprehensive identification of stakeholders and a
convincing rationale for those that have been included and excluded from the engagement,
feedback and reporting processes. Stakeholders are those people or organisations that
experience change as a result of the activity and they will be best placed to describe the
change. This principle means that stakeholders need to be identified and then involved in
consultation throughout the analysis.

Important guidance points:

Assessor  comments  
Ref.   Comments  
1   Does  the  report  clearly  explain  that  any  decisions  to  include  and  exclude  stakeholders  are  based  
on  expected  or  actual  outcomes  and  are  judgements  considered  reasonable  for  stakeholders  
excluded  at  this  stage  
2   Have  all  stakeholders  considered  likely  to  experience  material  changes  been  consulted  about  
what  changes  for  them?  
3   Does  the  report  describe  decisions  about  whether  or  not  change  should  be  analysed  for  sub-­‐
groups  of  stakeholders  where  different  outcomes  are  potentially  occurring  and  are  these  
decisions  considered  reasonable?  
4   Where  a  stakeholder  group  just  cannot  be  involved,  does  the  report  set  out  convincing  reasons  
why  this  has  not  been  possible  (see  supplement)  AND  does  the  report  demonstrate  that  all  
reasonable  avenues  of  engagement  have  been  exhausted  including  engagement  with  another  
group  as  proxy  for  what  changes  for  the  group  in  question?  
5   Does  the  report  clearly  describe  how  stakeholder  involvement  has  taken  place  AND  how  data  
has  been  gathered  and  recorded?  
6   Are  the  actual  questions  presented  to  stakeholders  shown  in  the  report  and  do  they  evidence  an  
open  approach  to  enquiry  about  what  changes  for  them?  
7   Is  the  theory  of  change  reasonably  evidenced  through  sufficient  stakeholders  involved  in  initial  
stakeholder  engagement  stage  and  is  there  any  reason  to  think  there  is  an  insufficient  
representation  of  stakeholders  involved  in  determining  the  outcomes  (As  distinct  from  sample  
of  stakeholders  required  to  evidence  scale  of  the  change)  
8   For  a  forecast  report,  where  fewer  stakeholders  have  been  engaged,  is  there  clear  justification  
for  sample  size  used  AND  are  there  clear  plans  and  recommendations  cited  in  the  report  to  
address  this  during  any  future  planned  cycle  of  analysis?  
9   For  a  forecast  report,  while  recognising  that  one  would  not  necessarily  know  the  variations  that  
could  exist  in  your  future  stakeholder  groups,  are  those  stakeholders  involved  representative  of  
predictable  variations  in  a  given  stakeholder  group  and  has  the  research  been  progressed  to  
saturation  point  when  no  new  things  are  emerging?  
10   For  an  evaluative  report,  is  the  selection  of  stakeholders  involved  in  reporting  outcomes  
representative  through  taking    account  of  variations  within  the  group    and  has  the  research  
been  progressed  to  saturation  point  when  no  new  things  are  emerging?  
11   Does  initial  stakeholder  engagement  and  other  sources  of  research  and  information  used  to  
support  information  from  engagement  have  a  clearly  explained  link  to  outcomes  that  ultimately  
are  claimed  in  the  report?  
12   Is  there  evidence  that  stakeholders  experiencing  material  change  have  been  consulted  about  
other  aspects  of  the  analysis  and  in  particular,  the  relative  importance  of  outcomes  to  them,  
how  they  would  prove  and  measure  change,  how  they  would  place  value  on  outcomes,  the  
duration  of  outcomes  and  what  proportion  of  the  outcome  is  down  to  others  or  would  have  
taken  place  anyway?  If  stakeholder  views  are  not  used  to  inform  all  of  these  aspects  is  the  
rationale  for  this  included  and  is  it  reasonable?  

3|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
2. Understand what changes
 

The report should be tested for a clear explanation of the theory of change for included
stakeholders. First of all this will require a test that the scope of the analysis has a clear
purpose and timescale. After this the assessor should check that report demonstrates
understanding of the chain of events, the point in the chain that outcomes are to be valued as
well as reporting on consideration of changes that the stakeholders intend and do not intend,
and changes that are positive and negative. This principle requires description in the analysis
of the theory of how these changes are created and supported by evidence. Assessors should
come to a judgement about the quality/ reasonableness of any evidence data presented.
 

Important guidance points:

Assessor  comments  
Ref.   Comments  
1   Has  the  author  made  clear  that  the  analysis  is  either  a  forecast  or  evaluative  study?  
2   Has  a  clear  scope  for  the  SROI  analysis  been  presented  AND  a  timescale  that  distinguishes  
between  the  investment  period  and  the  period  over  which  outcomes  are  projected?  
3   Is  the  rationale  clear  for  choices  made  around  activities  included  and  excluded  and  is  the  
rationale  considered  reasonable?  
4   For  stakeholders  experiencing  material  outcomes,  are  the  relationships  between  input,  output  
and  outcome  clearly  described  in  the  report.  
5   Is  the  theory  of  change  for  the  groups  of  stakeholders  explicit  in  the  report  and  are  decisions  on  
the  connections  in  the  chain  of  change  and  the  point  at  which  the  outcomes  are  valued  clearly  
described  and  are  the  decisions  reasonable?  
6   Have  unintended  and  negative  outcomes  been  considered  and  included  in  the  analysis  and  if  
not  is  there  a  convincing  rationale/evidence  presented  supporting  the  claim  that  they  do  not  
take  place?  
7   Are  the  indicators  described  in  the  report  in  such  a  manner  as  to  be  clearly  appropriate  to  
demonstrating  the  existence  of  the  outcome,  measurement  of  the  quantities  of  outcomes  and  
in  the  case  that  outcomes  are  not  absolute,  measuring  the  degree  of  outcome  experienced  by  
stakeholders?  
8   Where  appropriate  have    objective  as  well  as  subjective  indicators  been  used  without  double  
counting  quantities  of  outcomes?  
9   Does  the  data  gathered  clearly  support  the  theory  of  change  and  is  the  quantity  of  change  
being  claimed  for  each  outcome  based  on  a  representative  sample  of  stakeholders  experiencing  
it?  
10   In  a  forecast  report  where  there  is  less  corroborating  data  available  to  support  changes  and  
quantities  of  changes,  does  the  report  include  recommendations  for  the  organisation  to  
implement  systems  to  gather  required  data  in  future?  
11   In  a  forecast  report  is  the  quantity  of  change  corroborated  in  the  report  through  reference  to  
other  supporting  data,  is  it  clearly  described  and  the  connection  made  to  support  the  outcome  
reasonable?  
12   Do  all  outcomes  relate  properly  to  the  stakeholder  for  whom  they  are  claimed?  
13   Is  there  a  clear  chain  of  events  applied  and  reported  in  determining  different  outcomes  and  
quantities  of  outcomes  that  covers  all  stakeholders  in  the  cohort?  (Please  ensure  that  the  report  
addresses  what  happens  within  a  given  group  of  stakeholders  to  the  remaining  members  who  
don’t  experience  the  particular  outcome  being  claimed)  

4|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
14   Are  the  claimed  outcomes  clearly  explained  in  the  report,  including  unintended  and  negative  
change  and  have  outcomes  alone  been  taken  forward  to  valuation?    
15   Does  the  model  include  figures  for  the  duration  of  outcomes  with  explanations?  
16   Is  the  Impact  map  clear  and  transparent  and  is  the  reporting  of  change  completely  consistent  
with  Impact  map  contents?    

3. Value things that matter

This principle is concerned with how outcomes are valued in the SROI process. The important
thing here is that financial proxies are used in order that the value of the outcomes can be
recognised. Assessors will look to ensure that financial proxies are clear, appropriate to the
outcome and also that indicators are clear and appropriate. Any data for indicators and
financial proxies will require source of information. Assessors should come to a judgement
about the quality/ reasonableness of any data presented.

Important guidance points:

Assessor  comments  
Ref.   Comments  
1   Have  all  relevant  inputs  by  significant  stakeholders  been  included  and  valued  and  if  not  valued  
is  a  rationale  provided  in  the  report  that  is  adjudged  to  be  reasonable?  
2   Have  all  the  material  outcomes  or  in  the  case  of  forecast,  all  predicted  material  outcomes  been  
given  a  value?  
3   Are  the  financial  proxies  clearly  described  and  adjudged  to  be  reasonable  and  appropriate  to  
the  outcome  and  are  the  choices  of  available  valuation  approaches  discussed  and  the  decisions  
taken  clear  and  reasonable?  
4   Are  Financial  Proxies  appropriate  to  the  stakeholder  for  whom  the  value  is  claimed?  
5   Is  there  any  reason  to  think  that  outcomes  are  missing  from  the  analysis  because  they  were  too  
difficult  to  value  or  for  other  reasons?  

5|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
4. Only include what is material
 
This principle requires an assessment of whether a person would make a different decision
about the activity if a particular piece of information were excluded. This covers decisions
about which stakeholders experience significant change, as well as the information about the
outcomes. Deciding what is material requires reference to a number of aspects, for example
the organisations own policies, its peers, societal norms, and short-term financial impacts

Important guidance points:

 
1   Does  the  report  clearly  describe  materiality  decisions  used  in  the  early  stages  to  make  
judgements  about  which  stakeholders  to  include  in  /  exclude  from  the  analysis  and  are  these  
judgements  considered  reasonable?  
2   In  accordance  with  the  supplement  to  The  Guide  on  Materiality,  Is  there  explanation  in  the  
report  to  justify  what  materiality  test  has  been  brought  to  bear  on  decisions  taken  at  later  
stages  to  include  and  exclude  outcomes  (or  stakeholders  who  do  not  experience  material  
outcomes)  and  are  the  decisions  adjudged  to  be  reasonable?  
3   Where  an  organisational  theory  of  change  or  mission  is  described  in  the  report  there  is  a  risk  
that  the  decision  on  what  outcomes  to  include  is  overly  influenced  by  this.      Do  decisions  on  
materiality  of  outcomes  recognise  other  factors  to  ensure  a  reasonable  decision  on  positive  and  
negative  outcomes  experienced  by  all  stakeholders  in  each  stakeholder  group.  
4   Is  there  evidence  that  materiality  tests  have  been  applied  to  outcomes  and  stakeholders  during  
the  whole  process  as  part  of  decisions  around  significance  for  deadweight,  value,  and  quantity  
of  change  and  around  relevance  relating  to  the  final  decision  to  include  outcomes  rather  than  
just  at  the  beginning?  
5   Is  there  anything  that  would  lead  the  assessor  to  conclude  that  there  have  been  exclusions  that  
would  lead  to  different  stakeholder  decisions  and  conclusions  about  the  activity?  
6   In  a  forecast  report  where  materiality  tests  cannot  yet  be  applied  to  stakeholders  or  outcomes,  
has  this  been  explored  in  sensitivity  analysis  and  are  there  recommendations  to  the  
organisation  for  enacting  materiality  processes  for  the  future?  

6|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
  

5. Do not over claim  

This principle requires reference to trends and benchmarks to help assess the change caused
by the activity, as opposed to other factors, and to take account of what would have happened
anyway. It also requires consideration of the contribution of other people or organisations to
the reported outcomes in order to match the contributions to the outcomes.

Important guidance points:

 
1   Have  all  inputs  that  would  lead  to  the  included  outcomes  been  given  a  value  for  calculation  of  
the  SROI  ratio?  
2   Has  double  counting  been  avoided,  for  example  when  choosing  more  than  one  indicator  per  
outcome?  
3   Has  double  counting  been  avoided  through  clarity  of  reporting  on  the  chain  of  events  that  
might  lead  to  different  outcomes  for  the  stakeholder  group?  
4   Are  the  numbers  of  outcomes  claimed  per  stakeholder  group  out  of  the  total  membership  of  
that  group  credible  and  reasonable?  
5   For  an  evaluative  analysis  are  the  figures  used  for  deadweight  and  attribution  based  on  trends  
and  benchmarks  or  a  systematic  and  clearly  explained  estimation  process  using  information  
from  stakeholders  or  other  external  information?  
6   For  a  forecast  analysis  are  the  figures  estimated  for  deadweight  and  attribution  subject  to  
sensitivity  analysis  and  plans  for  better  data  capture  over  the  ensuing  period?  
7   Does  the  analysis  discuss  decisions  on  displacement  and  include  a  figure  if  appropriate  with  
reasonable  and  convincing  explanation?  
8   Does  the  analysis  consider  how  outcomes  drop-­‐off  over  time?  
9   For  an  evaluative  analysis,  are  durations  used  based  on  research  evidence?  
10   For  a  forecast  study  where  durations  used  have  not  been  based  on  research  evidence  –  is  there  
a  reasonable  explanation  and  is  it  clear  that  any  assumptions  made  have  been  subjected  to  
sensitivity  analysis  and  are  to  be  monitored  in  the  future?  
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014
 6. Be transparent

Assessors will look for evidence that reports demonstrate the basis on which the analysis may
be considered accurate and honest, and show that it will be reported to and discussed with
stakeholders. This principle requires that each decision relating to stakeholders, outcomes,
indicators and benchmarks; the sources and methods of information collection; the difference
scenarios considered and the communication of the results to stakeholders should be explained
and documented.

Important guidance points:

 
1   Is  there  an  audit  trail  both  of  what  is  and  what  is  not  included  relating  to  stakeholders  and  
outcomes?  
2   Is  the  Impact  map  clear  and  transparent  and  is  the  report  completely  consistent  with  Impact  
map  contents?  
3   Is  the  sensitivity  analysis  adjudged  to  include  appropriate  elements  relevant  to  the  study  with  
clear  information  on  which  aspects  and  which  assumptions  have  been  assessed  for  sensitivity?  
4   Are  all  data  sources  in  both  the  impact  map  and  the  report  referenced  in  a  way  that  would  
enable  the  reader  to  refer  and  verify–  including  information  on  the  source  of  valuations  of  
outcomes?  
5   Is  there  enough  information  on  the  data  set  and  are  all  calculations  set  out  in  a  way  that  makes  
it  possible  for  the  calculation  to  be  replicated  and  to  arrive  at  the  same  result  of  social  return?  
6   Where  a  report  is  not  presented  as  evaluative,  does  it  clearly  declare  the  limitations  of  the  
analysis  specifically  for  public  use  and  cite  requirements  and  recommendations  to  reach  higher  
levels  of  rigour  and  a  better  position  of  validity  for  claims  made?    

 
7. Verify the result
 

Although an SROI analysis provides the opportunity for a more complete understanding of the
value being created by an activity, it inevitably involves subjectivity. Appropriate independent
assurance is required to help stakeholders assess whether or not the decisions made by those
responsible for the analysis were reasonable.
 

Important guidance points:

 
1   Is  there  evidence  in  the  report  citing  how  stakeholders  have  been  involved  in  reviewing  and  
verifying  the  claims  in  the  analysis?  
 

8|Page
The SROI Network Assurance & Accreditation member information – March 2014