Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 79
2022d) indicates that repor ti ng on social impacts 
will be even more demanding in terms of depth and 
scope, and will be integrated into the overarching 
non ‐financial repor ti ng framework (European Com ‐
mission, 2014). This also is proposed by the environ ‐
mental, social, and governance criteria of the 
so ‐called ESG ini ti a ti ve (European Commission, 
2020b). In par ti cular, when organiza ti ons are co ‐
funded by public sources to create social value, in 
addi ti on to their financial performance, they also 
need to focus on the measurement of impacts on 
society (Millar & Hall, 2013). Nonprofit organiza ‐
ti ons, which largely are co ‐financed by public funds, 
represent a growing sector in developed countries, 
bringing calls for more legi ti miza ti on and evidence 
of e ffec ti veness to provide accountability and jus ti fy 
1 INTRODUCTION 
In light of sustainable development, a modern 
organiza ti on is expected to operate and demon ‐
strate its performance not only in terms of maximiz ‐
ing value for the owner but also in terms of impact 
on society and the environment (e.g., United Na ‐
ti ons, 2015; European Commission, 2022a). This 
holds for both companies and nonprofit organiza ‐
ti ons (NPOs). The incen ti ve for measuring and re ‐
por ti ng firms’ social impact comes from the 
market—from both buyers and peers. Addi ti onally, 
the regulators in par ti cular economic sectors might 
prescribe the scope and depth of repor ti ng on social 
impacts by following the set goals of sustainable de ‐
velopment (European Commission, 2014). The Pro ‐
posal for a CSR Direc ti ve (European Commission, 
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to help organiza ti ons facing the challenge of measuring the social impact of their ac ti vi ti es. 
Although examples of environmental e ffects’ analyses abound, this is not the case for the analysis of social impact. To 
illustrate how organiza ti ons can demonstrate their impact on society, we evaluated the ac ti vi ti es of the Incredible 
Years (IY) paren ti ng program using the social return on investment (SROI) approach, considering not only the direct 
impact of the program on children, but a broader range of outcomes for di fferent stakeholders. We show that the 
mone ti zed impacts of the program are about 10 ti mes higher than the costs of the program. The SROI as an evalua ti on 
approach is generally applicable to ac ti vi ti es of for ‐profit and nonprofit organiza ti ons, and serves as a reference to 
demonstrate the value of expected social impact to investors and funders. Therefore, SROI is a valuable tool not only 
for managers but for policy makers as well. We discuss the steps, data requirement, interpreta ti on of results, and lim ‐
ita ti ons of the social impact analysis.  
 
Keywords: social impact, social impact analysis, SROI, ESG, paren ti ng program
HOW TO MEASURE OUR IMPACT ON SOCIETY: AN ILLUSTRATION OF SOCIAL 
IMPACT ANALYSIS 
Mojca Marc 
School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 
mojca.marc@ef.uni ‐lj.si  
Nina Ponikvar 
Associated professor 
School of Economics and Business, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia 
nina.ponikvar@ef.uni ‐lj.si 
Vol. 11, No. 2, 79 ‐96 
doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2022.v11n02a06

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 80
the funding (Arvidson, Lyon, McKay, & Moro, 2013). 
Accordingly, managers of nonprofit organiza ti ons 
also are expected to jus ti fy the spending of public 
funds for social impact by repor ti ng on their pro ‐
grams’ e fficiency and e ffec ti veness. All this means 
that social impact analysis will gain importance as a 
tool to iden ti fy, measure, and evaluate the social de ‐
sirability of ac ti vi ti es. 
This paper addresses these important and 
ti mely issues. Although examples of environmental 
e ffects analyses abound, this is not the case for the 
analysis of social impact. This corresponds to the de ‐
velopment of the regulatory framework, which cur ‐
rently is more developed for environmental e ffects 
(European Commission, 2020c). Therefore the pur ‐
pose of this paper is to help organiza ti ons facing the 
challenge of measuring the social impact of their ac ‐
ti vi ti es by providing an example. We use the case of 
the Incredible Years (IY) paren ti ng program to illus ‐
trate the steps, data requirements, interpreta ti on of 
results, and limita ti ons of such analysis.  
The case was chosen because the program has 
a range of e ffects, occurring across a longer ti me 
frame and for mul ti ple stakeholders. This allows us 
to demonstrate how to capture such features within 
the social impact analysis. We used the social return 
on investment (SROI) approach, taking into account 
not just the program’s direct e ffects on the children 
but a broader set of outcomes for di fferent stake ‐
holders. Namely, studies show that paren ti ng train ‐
ing programs are an extremely e ffec ti ve way to 
reduce children’s behavioral problems and improve 
parent–child rela ti onships (Hutchings et al., 2007), 
given that parents have a crucial influence on a 
child’s behavior (Gardner, 1987). Such programs 
provide be tt er chances to finish schooling and to 
prosper in life, and be tt er quality of life for parents 
and siblings as well. Furthermore, these e ffects ex ‐
tend beyond their families to communi ti es and so ‐
ciety in the broadest sense. S ti ll, the target groups 
of such programs o ft en represent minor segments 
of the popula ti on, and the posi ti ve direct e ffects are 
challenging to evaluate, so the economic viability of 
these programs is o ft en ques ti oned despite the un ‐
doubtedly posi ti ve quality e ffects. Moreover, there 
is growing pressure on the program ini ti ators to 
demonstrate empirically the value of the expected 
social impact created by invested funds. Because 
the SROI is based on the monetary value of inputs 
and impacts, managers can use the results of such 
analyses for this purpose.  
We define social impact analysis as an umbrella 
term for the variety of methodological approaches 
developed in di fferent literature streams. The pro ‐
fessional and academic community recognizes that 
mere economic indicators of performance, such as 
costs and profits, do not adequately reflect the 
broad scope of impacts expected from organiza ti ons 
and projects aiming to create social value. Many at ‐
tempts have been proposed in economics, account ‐
ing, and the social impact assessment literature 
(e.g., Burdge, 2003; Freudenburg, 1986; ICPGSIA, 
2003; O’Faircheallaigh, 2009) to improve the perfor ‐
mance measurement (and management) in this re ‐
spect. The SROI approach is just one possible 
method to systema ti cally iden ti fy, measure, and 
evaluate a broader set of individual and social ef ‐
fects. SROI has been applied across di fferent public 
health areas, including health promo ti on, mental 
health, sexual and reproduc ti ve health, child health, 
nutri ti on, healthcare management, health educa ‐
ti on, and environmental health (see review by 
Banke ‐Thomas, Madaj, & Van den Broek, 2015). Re ‐
cently, SROI studies also have emerged in the areas 
of physical ac ti vity and sport (see review by Gos ‐
selin, Boccanfuso, & Laberge, 2020), as well as in so ‐
cial enterprises to measure their social value 
(Nicholls, 2007).  
The SROI value is based on the monetary valu ‐
a ti on of inputs and the monetary valua ti on of im ‐
pacts of the analyzed program or ac ti vi ti es. 
Although measuring such programs’ inputs usually 
is not problema ti c, measuring the benefits of these 
programs in a way that allows us to include them in 
the SROI calcula ti on, namely in money terms, poses 
a considerable challenge to scholars and prac titi on ‐
ers (Millar & Hall, 2013; Maier, Schober, Simsa, and 
Millner, 2015; Arvidson et al., 2013). Our study con ‐
tributes to the growing knowledge base in economic 
evalua ti ons of social impact by addressing some of 
the challenges of measuring and mone ti zing the ef ‐
fects in economic evalua ti ons. The example we use 
can be generalized to many similar ac ti vi ti es, par ti c ‐
ularly those aimed at preven ti ng nega ti ve impacts, 
implemented by di fferent organiza ti ons.  
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 81
This paper first presents a literature review of 
the e ffects of paren ti ng programs and social impact 
measurement. Then we explain the SROI technique 
for economic evalua ti on. Next we explain how we 
iden ti fied and measured the social impact of the IY 
paren ti ng program carried out in the period 2017–
2019 in Slovenia. The results sec ti on contains the 
empirical results for the studied case, and the con ‐
clusion wraps up the paper. 
 
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND  
In this sec ti on, we first review the literature on 
the e ffects of paren ti ng programs to understand 
where to look for stakeholders and social impacts. 
Second, we briefly overview the analy ti cal ap ‐
proaches to measure social impact.  
 
2.1 E ffects of Paren ti ng Programs 
The literature on the e ffects of interven ti on and 
preven ti ve health programs, including paren ti ng 
programs, confirms their short ‐ and long ‐term pos ‐
i ti ve impact on the health and well ‐being of individ ‐
uals and their immediate community (Copeland, 
Shanahan, Costello, and Angold, 2009; Sco tt , Knapp, 
Henderson, and Maughan, 2001). Intervening early 
in childhood is essen ti al for preven ti ng or mi ti ga ti ng 
later consequences of mental disorders (Pardini and 
Frick, 2013), such as failure in school, suicidal ten ‐
dencies, crime, teen pregnancy, mental and physical 
health problems, social isola ti on, and even death. 
Paren ti ng programs e ffec ti vely reduce children’s be ‐
havioral issues; improve paren ti ng skills; and reduce 
anxiety, stress, and depression among parents 
(Hutchings et al., 2007).  
The IY parenting program for parents of chil ‐
dren aged 3–8 includes preventive interventions 
in the field of mental health of children. Parents’ 
participation in such programs statistically signifi ‐
cantly reduces behavioral disorders in children 
(Menting, de Castro, & Matthys, 2013; O’Neill, 
McGilloway, Donnelly, Bywater, & Kelly, 2010), 
thus reducing or preventing the adverse effects of 
behavioral disorders with early onset on educa ‐
tion, health, addiction, delinquency and crime, 
teen pregnancy, child neglect, etc. IY improves 
parenting skills; relationships within the family; 
the self ‐image of family members; social, emo ‐
tional, and communication skills of children; will ‐
ingness to learn; prevention of serious behavioral 
disorders; the interaction between children and 
parents; relationships and connections; parents’ 
problem ‐solving skills; and children’s social skills 
and emotional control, school ‐readiness, and 
readiness for problem ‐solving; and reduces chil ‐
dren’s behavioral and emotional problems (see 
Menting et al. 2013 for a review of studies).  
Long ‐term and, to a large extent, measurable 
program benefits include social savings in the field 
of various health services (from the treatment of 
psychiatric disorders to chronic non ‐infec ti ous dis ‐
eases), at all levels of educa ti on, in social services, 
in the preven ti on of consump ti on of legal and illegal 
drugs and non ‐chemical addic ti on, and in the field 
of juvenile delinquency and crime (Men ti ng et al. 
2013). The program also contributes to children’s 
be tt er academic achievement and to a greater level 
of their economic ac ti vity in adulthood, thus reduc ‐
ing the need for compensa ti on for unemployment 
and social transfers (Cleary, Fitzgerald, and Nixon, 
2004; Colman et al. 2009; Sco tt et al. 2001).  
 
2.2 Social Impact Measurement 
In this paper, we understand “social impact” as 
an impact on society. Typically, the intended direct 
e ffect of an ac ti vity is a posi ti ve impact, so we also 
call it a “benefit” for society. There are many calls 
for more examples, especially studies that enable 
comparison in monetary terms either within or 
across organiza ti ons. Because the analyses need to 
include e ffects occurring for a range of stakehold ‐
ers, such calcula ti ons are complex and demand 
considerable resources. Various approaches to so ‐
cial impact measurement share the aim of measur ‐
ing and evalua ti ng the impacts as consequences of 
ac ti vi ti es on relevant target groups (stakeholders). 
We iden ti fied three areas in which methods were 
developed for capturing the impacts of ac ti vi ti es 
crea ti ng social instead of purely monetary added 
value: economics, social accoun ti ng, and social im ‐
pact assessment. In this sec ti on, we briefly summa ‐
rize the main approaches. 

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 82
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis
Tradi ti onally, economic evalua ti on methods 
such as cost ‐e ffec ti veness, cost ‐u ti lity, and cost–
benefit analyses (CBA) have been used to assess the 
value ‐for ‐money of public programs, especially in 
the health sector. For example, CBA is based on the 
demand func ti on and evaluates benefits in money 
terms, either by the willingness ‐to ‐pay or willing ‐
ness ‐to ‐accept approach (Then, Schober, Rauscher, 
& Kehl, 2017). In the accoun ti ng field, social ac ‐
coun ti ng emerged as a contemporary approach to 
value and measure social impacts (Richmond, 
Mook, & Quarter, 2003). This approach focuses on 
including stakeholder input among data analyzed for 
the accoun ti ng statements (Richmond et al., 2003) 
and on providing a common language and metric 
for comparing heterogeneous social impacts (Mook, 
2013). Examples include the Global Impact Inves ti ng 
Ra ti ngs System (GIIRS, 2008) and the Impact Report ‐
ing and Investment Standards (IRIS, 2009). 
The social return on investment method devel ‐
oped from tradi ti onal CBA and social accoun ti ng. 
The SROI approach originated from the social im ‐
pact literature and was introduced in the 1990s by 
the Roberts Enterprise Development Founda ti on. In 
addi ti on to some professional analyses, several aca ‐
demic studies produced di fferent advanced analy ti ‐
cal techniques for calcula ti ng the SROI (Adler, 2006; 
Gair, 2002; Hammi tt & Haninger, 2011). The SROI 
has been promoted as a more ”holis ti c” approach 
to demonstra ti ng value for money (Banke ‐Thomas, 
Madaj, Charles, & van den Broek, 2015).  
Both the SROI and CBA try to evaluate the ef ‐
fects of an ac ti vity or a program at the societal level. 
Accordingly, the purpose of undertaking a cost–ben ‐
efit analysis is similar, if not iden ti cal, to that of un ‐
dertaking an analysis of social return on investment 
(Cordes 2017). Some even define SROI as “a form of 
adjusted cost ‐benefit analysis that takes into ac ‐
count, more holis ti cally, the various types of im ‐
pact” that programs have (Arvidson et al., 2010). 
SROI also has been described as an extension of the 
CBA to incorporate in addi ti on the broader socio ‐
economic and environmental outcomes (Banke ‐
Thomas et al., 2015).  
At the same ti me, several di fferences have been 
pointed out by the academic literature (e.g., Arvid ‐
son et al., 2010; Then et al., 2017). First, CBA di ffers 
from the SROI in the scope of the impacts consid ‐
ered. CBA has a narrower focus on the economic im ‐
pacts with direct and indirect costs, and barely 
considers social, poli ti cal, and cultural impacts. Com ‐
pared with CBA, SROI analysis uses di fferent termi ‐
nology, focusing on the investment approach, 
including profit. In addi ti on, there is a very strong ex ‐
plicit emphasis on stakeholders within SROI and the 
types of involvement they can have. Consulta ti on 
with stakeholders and their importance is one of the 
strongest features of conduc ti ng a SROI. It appears 
within CBA but is given much less emphasis. This 
characteris ti c of “bo tt om ‐up” SROI (vs. “top ‐down” 
CBA) has been recognized by health economists (Ed ‐
wards & Lawrence, 2021). SROI can be deployed as 
a management tool and integrated into organiza ‐
ti onal flows. Furthermore, SROI is presented as one 
way an organiza ti on may learn and use SROI to direct 
resources to areas with the most significant impact 
(Then et al., 2017). CBA is more likely to be con ‐
ducted by external agents who report on the e fficacy 
of par ti cular proposals or interven ti ons. 
 
3 METHODOLOGY 
3.1 The Analyzed Program  
We analyzed the IY paren ti ng program for par ‐
ents of children aged 3–8, which was implemented 
in Slovenia in the 2017–2019 period. The e ffec ti ve ‐
ness and transferability of the program have been 
studied for over 40 years in di fferent cultural envi ‐
ronments. The goals, structure, and implementa ti on 
of the cer ti fied IY program are standardized across 
countries. The program includes mainly parents of 
children with behavioral issues who have been re ‐
ferred for or already are receiving treatment. In 
Slovenia, the IY pilot implementa ti on started in the 
period 2015–2016 and, similar to other countries, 
yielded excep ti onal results. Consequently, in 2017, 
10 IY centers were set up in five Slovenian regions. 
In the 2017–2019 period, funds were provided by 
the Ministry of Health and a consor ti um of partner 
ins ti tu ti ons with the support of the local community 
and by the Ministry of Labor, Family, Social A ffairs 
and Equal Opportuni ti es. This study analyzed the 
costs of the program for the volume planned for 
2018 and the benefits arising in a 10 ‐year period 
a ft er the implementa ti on in 2018.

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 83
3.2 The SROI Analysis 
The core of the SROI method is the “impact 
model,” composed of several “impact chains”—
one for each of the key stakeholders affected. In 
every chain, hypothetical relations between in ‐
puts, activities, and outputs are specified (Figure 
1). Outputs are determined as directly measurable 
results of activities leading to the desired out ‐
comes. Outcomes are understood as gross effects, 
of which only a part is a consequence of the pro ‐
gram and represent the actual impacts (Then et 
al., 2017). Equivalently, the impact is defined as 
the difference between outcomes that would 
occur with and without the program (i.e., a net ef ‐
fect). Impacts for each of the stakeholders typi ‐
cally are determined first in natural units, but they 
also can be monetized. For economic evaluations, 
we strive to monetize as many impact chains as 
possible and sensible.  
A ft er each impact chain is evaluated in mone ‐
tary terms, the impacts can be summed and com ‐
pared to the inputs’ cost. The comparison usually is 
expressed as the SROI value, which is a ra ti o of the 
total impact (sum of all impact chains) to the total 
input cost (Equa ti on 1). For example, a SROI value 
of 5 means that each €1 spent in the program cre ‐
ates a value of €5 in social e ffects.  
 
 (1) 
 
These are the five elementary steps in the SROI 
analysis carried out for our case, the IY paren ti ng 
program:
Step 1. Iden ti fy a broad set of poten ti al stakeholders 
a ffected posi ti vely or nega ti vely by the program.  
Special care must be taken to ensure that as 
many direct and indirect e ffects on individuals, or ‐
ganiza ti ons, and ins ti tu ti ons are iden ti fied, regard ‐
less of how directly they are involved in the 
program’s ac ti vity. The impacts some ti mes can be 
unintended or harmful for some stakeholders; such 
stakeholders must not be neglected in the analysis. 
The reviewed literature on early childhood interven ‐
ti ons exposes several poten ti al stakeholders. The ex ‐
pected posi ti ve impacts on the health and 
well ‐being of individuals and their immediate com ‐
munity are most apparent and, consequently, the 
child, parents, and families represent key stakehold ‐
ers in this analysis. Moreover, the ins ti tu ti ons from 
health ‐related, educa ti onal, and social sectors also 
are sources of poten ti al stakeholders. Finally, society 
also can be considered to be a stakeholder. 
 
Step 2. Iden ti fy key stakeholders, typically those for 
whom the most considerable e ffects are expected.  
Careful considera ti on must be taken to avoid in ‐
cluding too broad a range of those a ffected by the 
program, but to include those stakeholders for 
whom principal e ffects can be expected. In addi ti on 
to the child and parents, we iden ti fied ins ti tu ti ons 
from pre ‐school and primary school educa ti on 
(kindergartens and elementary schools) as key 
stakeholders. The IY program’s e ffects on secondary 
and ter ti ary educa ti on are generated over a more 
extended period and are beyond the ti me horizon 
of our analysis. For the health sector, we treated in ‐
s ti tu ti ons o ffering primary and secondary treatment 
of behavioral and emo ti onal problems as crucial 
Figure 1: Impact model in SROI analysis (one impact chain)

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis
84
stakeholders. We also included society as a key 
stakeholder because some e ffects on the perceived 
level of safety and crime rate were expected within 
the study’s ti me horizon.  
 
Step 3. Set up the impact model by specifying (hy ‐
pothe ti cal) impact chains for each stakeholder.  
The theoretical impact chains for children and 
parents are well substantiated by the literature 
(Menting et al., 2013). Hence, we expected that 
the inputs required by the IY program’s activities 
will result in measurable outputs leading to the 
program’s intended outcomes. For the immediate 
stakeholder group, parents, this means that by par ‐
ticipating in the program’s activities (attended 
weekly classes and special events are the outputs), 
they will improve their parenting skills and benefit 
from having a better family and professional life 
(outcomes and impacts). The children do not par ‐
ticipate in the weekly sessions; however, they have 
short ‐term benefits in terms of fewer require ‐
ments for special assistance (hours of health ser ‐
vices, educational services, and social workers’ 
services are the outputs) as well as a happier and 
more productive life over the long term (outcomes 
and impacts). 
 
Step 4. Collect empirical data to calculate the cost 
of inputs and the impact for each chain.  
Figure 1 shows how the impact was determined 
by first understanding the program’s outputs and 
outcomes. Usually, the outputs and outcomes are 
evaluated first in natural units, and then the impact 
is determined. A ft erward, the non ‐monetary im ‐
pacts of the program are given a monetary value. 
Outputs of the IY program are the services directly 
provided to par ti cipants (parents): class hours, ad ‐
visory sessions, events, or similar directly countable 
results. The outcomes represent the intended and 
unintended consequences for the target group a ft er 
the ac ti vi ti es are carried out. Unintended conse ‐
quences are the posi ti ve or nega ti ve e ffects that are 
not part of the program’s mission. The outcomes of 
paren ti ng programs usually are measured with di ‐
agnos ti c ques ti onnaires filled in by par ti cipants be ‐
fore and a ft er implementa ti on.  
Within the studied IY program, data were 
recorded only for the immediate stakeholders (chil ‐
dren and parents) based on an ini ti al interview with 
parents and with diagnos ti c ques ti onnaires such as 
the Paren ti ng Scale, Eyberg Child Behaviour Inventory 
(ECBI), the Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing 
Scale (WEMBS), and the Development and Well ‐
Being Assessment (DAWBA) diagnos ti c interview. Un ‐
like certain IY programs (O’Neill et al., 2010), the 
children’s need for health, social, and educa ti onal 
services before and a ft er parents’ involvement in the 
program was not measured [for example, using the 
Client Socio ‐Demographic and Service Receipt Inven ‐
tory (Chisholm et al., 2000)]. For SROI analysis, data 
collected with such a ques ti onnaire would be useful. 
Instead, as a proxy measure of outcomes (and hence, 
impacts), we used secondary data and interviews 
with the manager of the largest IY program provider 
in Slovenia, the head of the Department for Child Psy ‐
chiatry of the Pediatric Clinic in Ljubljana, and the di ‐
rector of the IY programs in Slovenia.  
 
Step 5. Calculate the SROI value for the program.  
A ft er evalua ti ng the costs of inputs and mone ‐
ti zing impacts on the stakeholders, we calculated the 
SROI index as the ra ti o of the total value of the im ‐
pacts to the value of inputs. In principle, a SROI index 
higher than 1 indicates a program producing social 
e ffects greater than its costs. Hence, such a program 
is not only socially desirable but also economically ra ‐
ti onal for society. However, we must emphasize that 
the SROI value does not encompass the whole 
“value” of the program impacts, because many of the 
impacts are not mone ti zed, yet it is clear that they 
exist. Hence, the SROI index should serve mainly as a 
benchmark and star ti ng point for discussion regard ‐
ing how social value services are provided in society. 
 
4 RESULTS  
4.1 Steps 1 and 2 
The ini ti al steps of SROI require that we first iden ‐
ti fy poten ti al stakeholders a ffected by the program, 
followed by pinpoin ti ng the key stakeholders. This pro ‐
gram’s target beneficiaries and stakeholders are (1) 
children and (2) their parents and extended families. 
We primarily assessed direct benefits for the parents, 

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 85
and, similar to other studies in this field (O’Neill, McGil ‐
loway, Donnelly, Bywater, & Kelly, 2013), focused only 
on the key stakeholders for whom the e ffects of the 
program are the strongest and evident in the analyzed 
period, for which data are available. These stakehold ‐
ers are (3) primary and pre ‐school educa ti on organi ‐
za ti ons, (4) healthcare organiza ti ons, and (5) society.  
Due to non ‐available data, we only qualita ti vely 
describe the programs’ impacts in the fields of delin ‐
quency, crime, and unemployment for the children of 
the par ti cipants, as well as the indirect benefits and 
other external e ffects of the program on third par ti es. 
Thus, the calcula ti on of impacts included only a part 
of the program’s actual posi ti ve e ffects, whereas costs 
of implemen ti ng the program were included in full. 
Such analysis is prudent and leads to underes ti mated 
impacts of the program per unit of cost. 
4.2 Step 3  
Table 1 presents the impact model, composed of 
seven impact chains. It shows the assumed (hypothe ti ‐
cal) impact chains for seven iden ti fied key stakeholders: 
children, parents, pre ‐school (kindergartens), elemen ‐
tary schools, healthcare ins ti tu ti ons, social service ins ti ‐
tu ti ons, and, finally, society in its broadest sense. The 
program’s expected outputs for the children are fore ‐
most be tt er results in school, and lower incidence of 
conflicts with parents and other family members, 
friends, and teachers (educators). The expected out ‐
comes are be tt er quality of life, less likelihood for unem ‐
ployment in adulthood, be tt er health, higher educa ti on 
level, and less neglect and abuse. However, most of 
these e ffects can be quan ti fied and mone ti zed only 
a ft er the children become part of the ac ti ve popula ti on, 
which occurred beyond the ti me horizon of this analysis. 
Stakeholder Output Outcome/impact Mone ti zed outcome and impact
Children
Improved results in 
school, lower incidence 
of conflicts with family, 
friends, and teachers
Improved quality of life (less 
unemployment), health, a 
higher level of educa ti on, less 
neglect or abuse
/
Parents/family
Lower incidence of 
conflicts with children, 
less parent absenteeism 
Improved quality of life, health
Cost of absenteeismData: number of medical 
treatments, average salary
Preschool 
educa ti on 
ins ti tu ti ons 
(kindergartens)
Lower incidence of 
conflicts, fewer hours of 
APA
Improved quality of learning 
environment
Cost of APAData: number of children eligible for APA, 
cost of issuing APA decisions, hours of assistance 
provided per week, salary cost of assistants to 
children
Primary educa ti on 
ins ti tu ti ons  
(elementary 
schools)
Lower incidence of 
conflicts, fewer hours of 
APA
Improved quality of learning 
environment
Cost of APAData: number of children eligible for APA, 
cost of issuing APA decisions, hours of assistance 
provided per week, salary cost of assistants to 
children
Healthcare 
ins ti tu ti ons
Fewer treatments 
required
Improved availability of service 
Cost of medical treatmentsData: number of children 
in treatment for emo ti onal and behavioral problems, 
es ti mated number of hours of treatment, cost of 
salaries of medical teams
Social work 
centers
Fewer services required Improved availability of service /
Society
Lower incidence of 
addic ti on and juvenile 
delinquency
Improved safety level, lower 
crime rates
Cost of trea ti ng addic ti on and juvenile 
delinquencyData: annual cost of Centers for the 
Preven ti on and Treatment of Illicit Drug Addic ti on, 
annual cost of social assistance programs in the field 
of illicit drugs, annual cost of residen ti al juvenile 
delinquency treatment ins ti tu ti ons
Table 1: Hypothe ti cal impact model comprising seven individual impact chains
Note: APA = addi ti onal professional assistance

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis
86
The program’s expected outputs for the parents 
(par ti cipants in the program) mainly are a lower in ‐
cidence of conflicts with children, and less absen ‐
teeism due to lower needs of the child for the 
services of the health system and the social service 
system. There are two primary outcomes for this 
stakeholder: a be tt er quality of life, and be tt er 
health. Due to data limita ti ons, we focused only on 
the savings in the cost of absenteeism to mone ti ze 
the expected impact. The expected outputs for pre ‐
school and primary educa ti on ins ti tu ti ons are a 
lower incidence of conflicts and a lower need for ad ‐
di ti onal professional assistance (APA). We did not 
have data on the incidence of conflicts in schools; 
hence, we mone ti zed only the la tt er impact by es ti ‐
ma ti ng the savings in the cost of providing APA. 
The expected output for the healthcare ins ti tu ‐
ti ons and the social service ins ti tu ti ons is a lower 
number of treatments in the former and less need 
for services provided by social work centers in the 
la tt er . The expected outcome in both cases is be tt er 
availability of service for others. In the analysis, we 
quan ti fied and mone ti zed only the impact on the 
health sector ins ti tu ti ons by evalua ti ng the savings 
in the cost of treatments for children with emo ‐
ti onal and behavioral problems. The expected im ‐
pact on the social service system certainly is not 
negligible, but due to data unavailability, it was not 
quan ti fied and mone ti zed.  
Finally, from society’s perspec ti ve, the expected 
outputs from this paren ti ng program are a lower in ‐
cidence of addic ti on and juvenile delinquency. The 
expected outcomes are a greater level of safety and 
lower crime rates. We quan ti fied and mone ti zed 
these e ffects by evalua ti ng the savings in the cost of 
trea ti ng addic ti on as well as savings in the cost of 
juvenile delinquency residen ti al treatment. 
 
4.3 Step 4  
This sec ti on explains the mone ti za ti on of im ‐
pacts from Table 1 in more detail. We primarily as ‐
sessed direct benefits and focused only on the 
stakeholders for whom the program’s impacts were 
the strongest and most evident in the analyzed pe ‐
riod, for which data were available. Other impacts 
of the program were defined in qualita ti ve terms. 
4.3.1 Measuring the Cost of Inputs 
The cost of inputs included in the SROI analysis 
was es ti mated based on the 2018 IY implementa ‐
ti on costs (€173,551). The funding was provided by 
the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Slovenia 
(95%) and by a group of consor ti um partners (5%) 
(Mala ulica, 2017).  
The cost calcula ti ons are based on the pro ‐
jected average of 180 par ti cipants annually (Ander ‐
luh, 2017). The es ti mated program cost per 
parti cipant (parent) and per child was calculated by 
assuming that one par ti cipant (parent) had one 
child, following Kuzma, Mirkovi ć, Sve ti na, and An ‐
derluh (2017). Because most par ti cipants have more 
than one child, the program’s benefits actually are 
available to more children. However, because both 
parents may par ti cipate, fewer children than par ti c ‐
ipants possibly will benefit from the program. In the 
program’s pilot, the total number of children im ‐
pacted by the program was higher than the number 
of par ti cipants (343 parents and 438 children) 
(Kuzma et al., 2017). This indicates that our assump ‐
ti on (one par ti cipant equals one child) likely under ‐
es ti mates the number of children benefi ti ng from 
the program. 
Considering the projected par ti cipants’ volume 
for 2018 leads to a cost per par ti cipant to €964.17 
(€173,551/180). This is the first indicator for the as ‐
sessment of the SROI value of the IY paren ti ng pro ‐
gram. The program will have a SROI value higher 
than 1 if the es ti mated program’s social impacts ex ‐
ceed €964 per par ti cipant. If we apply the ra ti o of 
parents/children from the pilot implementa ti on of 
the program, in which the number of children ben ‐
efi ti ng from the program exceeded the number of 
parti cipants by 28%, the program’s es ti mated an ‐
nual cost per child would be €753.  
 
4.3.2. Measuring the Value of Impacts  
Regarding the IY paren ti ng program’s impacts, 
we first established that the program is a novelty in 
Slovenia, and there are no alterna ti ve programs 
with comparable e ffects. This means that the en ti re 
flow of the program’s outcomes is incremental and 
arises due to the program’s implementa ti on. Hence, 
the outcomes of the program can be considered 

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 87
equal to its impacts (net e ffects). Second, because 
this is a public preven ti ve health program financed 
from public sources and is free of charge for par ti c ‐
ipants, it does not have any direct monetary out ‐
come in the market. Thus, the program’s posi ti ve 
e ffects arise exclusively in non ‐monetary form as in ‐
direct e ffects due to the preven ti on of adverse ef ‐
fects on society.  
The program’s impacts were assessed within 
the 10 years for the projected volume of 180 par ti c ‐
ipants in 2018, as specified in the program’s appli ‐
ca ti on documents (Mala ulica, 2017). As men ti oned 
previously, in terms of program impacts, we primar ‐
ily assessed direct e ffects and focused on the fields 
in which the program’s impacts were the strongest 
and were evident in the analyzed period, for which 
data were available. These fields are primary and 
pre ‐school educa ti on, healthcare, addic ti on, and ju ‐
venile delinquency. Other impacts of the program, 
such as e ffects on parents and families; to a limited 
extent delinquency and crime, higher educa ti on at ‐
tainment, and the likelihood of employment; and 
external posi ti ve e ffects of the program were de ‐
fined in qualita ti ve terms.  
The program indirectly leads to children being 
more successful in the educa ti onal field and a tt ain ‐
ing higher academic levels (Colman et al., 2009; Fer ‐
gusson, Horwood and Ridder, 2005; O’Neill et al., 
2010), and to reducing the probability and dura ti on 
of unemployment. Because these e ffects rarely 
would occur within the analyzed 10 ‐year period, we 
did not calculate their monetary value. 
The impacts for the parents par ti cipa ti ng in the 
program were evaluated based on the savings in par ‐
ent absenteeism costs (lower loss of income due to 
accompanying the child to medical treatments). It 
was assumed that these savings are generated 
throughout the analyzed 10 ‐year period. These costs 
are incurred due to the ti me spent on transporta ‐
ti on, wai ti ng, and accompanying the child, and were 
es ti mated as 2 ti mes specified number of hours of 
medical treatment per child (2 × 12.75 hours = 25.5 
hours; see also the subsequent analysis for stake ‐
holders in healthcare) ti mes the average gross salary 
per hour in 2018, €11.31 (SURS, 2019). The annual 
cost of absenteeism per child thus amounted to 
€288.33, not including transporta ti on costs. The 
evalua ti on of the IY paren ti ng program (Kuzma et al., 
2017) shows that 14% of children from the program 
were included in medical treatment. Assuming the 
same share (14%), 25.2 of the 180 children from the 
program are included in medical treatment and must 
be accompanied by parents. The total costs of parent 
absenteeism are €7,266 (€288.33 × 25 children). We 
considered that the IY paren ti ng program’s e ffect will 
stand at 50%, which means that children from the 
program will need 50% fewer hours of medical treat ‐
ment, and hence the savings in this field amount to 
€3,633 annually (€7,266/2). Therefore the mone ‐
ti zed impact of the IY program for parents is at least 
€3,633 annually. The program further generates ben ‐
efits for parents by reducing absenteeism and allow ‐
ing them to spend leisure ti me a tt ending to children 
or helping them with their school work. It also re ‐
duces the possibility of inappropriate ac ti ons, wrong 
paren ti ng methods (Evans, Davies, Williams, & 
Hutchings, 2015), child neglect, or even abuse (Sethi 
et al., 2018). Consequently, it reduces the need for 
social services and social policy measures. The sav ‐
ings in this area were not quan ti fied and mone ti zed 
due to lack of available data. 
For the stakeholders in pre ‐school educa ti on, it 
was assumed that children whose parents were in ‐
cluded in the IY program in 2018 would require less 
APA. By Slovenian regula ti on, children have the right 
to 3 weekly hours of APA (individual supplementary 
tutoring by trained pedagogical specialists) if they 
have confirmed emo ti onal and behavioral prob ‐
lems. APA’s cost covers issuing decisions on APA 
(€210 per child) and implemen ti ng APA (specialists’ 
work, €1,837 annually per child). APA savings due 
to lower needs emerge immediately a ft er the im ‐
plementa ti on of the program. According to the head 
of the Center for Early Interven ti on in Child Mental 
Health and experience from the program provider 
Center for Child and Adolescent Mental Health, we 
assumed that the e ffect of paren ti ng program 
stands at 40%, which means that 40% of par ti ci ‐
pants’ children (72 of the 180 children) would not 
require APA in kindergartens. Annual savings 
amount to €147,404, which is the program’s impact 
on pre ‐school educa ti on stakeholders. 
In addi ti on to APA, in Slovenian primary edu ‐
ca ti on, children with severe emo ti onal and behav ‐
ioral disorders (for example, au ti sm) have the right 

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis
88
to personal assistants during school hours. Similar 
to the case for pre ‐school, children of parents in ‐
cluded in the IY paren ti ng program in 2018 poten ‐
ti ally need fewer hours of APA and fewer personal 
assistants. We assumed that these savings, on av ‐
erage, start in the third year a ft er the implementa ‐
ti on of the program, when children enter primary 
school. Three elements of savings were considered: 
the costs of issuing the decision on APA (€210 per 
child), the costs of implemen ti ng APA (€2,944 an ‐
nually per child), and the costs of personal assis ‐
tants to children with severe emo ti onal and 
behavioral disorders (€9,905 annually per child). In 
line with observed program e ffects in the Celje Pri ‐
mary Healthcare Centre, the IY e ffect on APA needs 
was evaluated at 20%. This means that 20% of par ‐
ti cipants’ children (36 of the 180 children) will not 
require APA, which leads to savings of €113,525. 
The need for personal assistants was es ti mated 
based on the share of children with an au ti sm spec ‐
trum disorder in the popula ti on of children with 
special needs. Following the conserva ti sm princi ‐
ple, our calcula ti on considered that 1% (Kuzma et 
al., 2017) of parents in the program have children 
with an au ti sm spectrum disorder (1.8 of the 180 
children in the program). In reality, this percentage 
is higher, because the structure of the program 
does not reflect the popula ti on. We assumed that 
the need for personal assistants would decrease by 
30% (0.54 children) due to the IY program. This 
means an annual saving of €5,349. The total savings 
for stakeholders in primary educa ti on a tt ributable 
to the IY paren ti ng program thus amounts to 
€118,874. Because we mone ti zed only a part of the 
e ffects, the program’s full impact is likely to be 
higher.  
Impacts for the healthcare stakeholders were 
assessed based on the avoided costs of health ser ‐
vices (fewer treatments needed at primary and sec ‐
ondary levels). We assumed that these savings are 
generated throughout the analyzed 10 ‐year period 
due to fewer healthcare teams’ services required at 
the primary and secondary level. We considered 
that the healthcare team at the primary level com ‐
prises one specialist (pediatrician) and one nurse, 
earning gross monthly salaries of €3,808 and 
€2,114, respec ti vely (MJU, 2019). Furthermore, con ‐
sidering a 174 ‐hour monthly workload and an equal 
division of work in the team, the primary healthcare 
team’s labor cost per hour is €17.02. The secondary ‐
level healthcare team comprises one specialist (pe ‐
dopsychiatrist or psychiatrist) and one nurse. The 
same salaries were assumed as in the case of the 
primary healthcare team, but with di fferent work di ‐
vision—90% specialist and 10% nurse—for a team 
labor cost per hour of €20.91. We assumed that a 
child with behavioral and emo ti onal disorders 
needs, on average, three primary ‐level 15 ‐minute 
appointments, a total of 0.75 hours of treatment at 
a primary level every year and a cost of €12.76 an ‐
nually. At the secondary level, such children need, 
on average, 12 1 ‐hour appointments per year, with 
a cost of €250.96 annually per child. Together with 
primary healthcare, this amounts to €263.73 annu ‐
ally per child. The secondary level costs also may in ‐
clude the costs for other specialists, such as a clinical 
psychologist, special educa ti on teacher, and speech 
and language therapist. However, these costs were 
not included in the calcula ti on.  
The evalua ti on study of the IY paren ti ng pro ‐
gram (Kuzma et al., 2017) showed that 14% of chil ‐
dren of the program’s par ti cipants are included in 
medical treatment. We assumed the same share for 
the program in 2018 (25.2 of the 180 children). As ‐
suming the aforemen ti oned costs, medical treat ‐
ment for these 25 children amounts to €6,646 
annually. We considered that the IY paren ti ng pro ‐
gram’s e ffect will be 50%, which means that the chil ‐
dren from the program will need one ‐half fewer 
hours of treatment by healthcare teams at the pri ‐
mary and secondary levels. Hence, the mone ti zed 
impact of the program for stakeholders in health ‐
care is at least €3,323 annually. Compared with ed ‐
uca ti on, the es ti mated savings in healthcare are low, 
because the Slovenian pediatric mental health sys ‐
tem capaci ti es currently are very limited. At least 
one ‐third of the children of parents included in the 
IY paren ti ng program meet the criteria for a clinical 
behavioral disorder (Kuzma et al., 2017), but only 
14% of these children are included in medical treat ‐
ment. If all children who meet the criteria for a clin ‐
ical behavioral disorder were included in medical 
treatment (60 of the 180 children), the IY paren ti ng 
program’s posi ti ve e ffect in this field would be sub ‐
stan ti ally higher, amoun ti ng to approximately 
€7,900 annually.  

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 89
For society as the stakeholder, the program’s 
outcome is a greater safety level and a lower crime 
rate. We estimated these impacts by monetizing 
the anticipated savings due to fewer cases of ad ‐
diction and juvenile delinquency requiring institu ‐
tional treatment, due to implementing the IY 
parenting program. The savings due to reducing 
addiction include only addiction to illicit drugs and 
are based on publicly available data on expendi ‐
tures in 2015 (NIJZ, 2016), which amounted to 
€7,762,541 for 3,719 users, resulting in a cost of 
treatment of €2,087 per person. We assumed that 
due to the IY program, 1% of children of the 180 
participants in 2018 (1.8 children) will not require 
treatment due to illicit drug addiction and that 
these savings occur only in the last year of the an ‐
alyzed 10 ‐year period, leading to a monetized im ‐
pact of €4,052. These savings relate to illicit drugs 
addiction only, but no other effects, such as reduc ‐
ing alcohol addiction and non ‐chemical addiction, 
which can be substantial.  
The literature review showed that parenting 
programs reduce juvenile delinquency. In this 
area, we assessed only the savings from the re ‐
duced costs of care in residential treatment insti ‐
tutions, which amount to €31,800 annually (MIZŠ, 
2018). Assuming that one child (of the 180 partic ‐
ipants) will not have to be placed in a residential 
treatment institution due to the parents’ partici ‐
pation in the IY parenting program, annual savings 
amount to €31,800. The effect of reducing juve ‐
nile delinquency was considered only in the last 
year of the analyzed period; however, actual sav ‐
ings can occur for several years beyond the ana ‐
lyzed time horizon. Our analysis did not consider 
the program’s effects on postponing referral to 
residential treatment institutions to a later year 
or the effects of shortening the average time 
spent in a residential treatment institution. The 
program’s long ‐term impacts lead to lower crime 
and delinquency rates in adulthood. Impacts of 
the program thus include savings in court fees and 
costs of prison sentences. These costs are esti ‐
mated to be exceptionally high (O’Neill et al., 
2010). In Slovenia, the daily cost per prisoner in 
2017 was €79.51 (Kosma č 2018), which is slightly 
more than €29,000 per prisoner per year. There ‐
fore, we justifiably can assume that the savings 
calculated (€31,800) are underestimated and rep ‐
resent the lower limit for the actual monetary 
value of the program’s impact in this area. 
Further IY effects arise not only for the ana ‐
lyzed stakeholders but for the society as well. 
These effects were not included in the calculation 
of SROI. First, parenting programs also lead to in ‐
direct impacts on the society, such as a greater 
probability of an individual’s economic indepen ‐
dence, less need for social policy measures, and 
larger net contribution to the financing of public 
services (O’Neill et al., 2010). Second, the pro ‐
gram’s long ‐term effects include a higher level of 
attained education, better physical and mental 
health of children when they reach adulthood, a 
greater probability of employment, or shorter un ‐
employment duration. Third, the improved welfare 
of children and families leads to healthier and 
more ‐responsible members of society, and, conse ‐
quently, to improved welfare in society. Finally, less 
juvenile delinquency, addiction, and crime lead to 
greater safety levels in society.  
Table 2 presents the mone ti zed impacts for the 
iden ti fied stakeholders’ groups, as well as the total 
value of impacts in the analyzed 10 ‐year period. The 
actual value of impacts is likely to be even higher 
because we mone ti zed only a part of the iden ti fied 
e ffects.
Impacts over 10 ‐year period per stakeholder (€) Total impact
Child Parents Kindergartens Elementary schools Health system Social service Society
* 36,329.31 279,687 786,757 33,229.36 * 35,852 1,171,854.72
Table 2: Mone ti zed impacts per stakeholder
* 10 ‐year impacts for these stakeholders are described qualita ti vely and were not mone ti zed. 

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis
90
4.4 Step 5 
Figure 2 shows the impact chain and the results 
of the SROI calcula ti on. The SROI value for the 2018 
IY program is 10.13. This means that every €1 in ‐
vested in the paren ti ng program in 2018 generates 
posi ti ve e ffects for various stakeholders in the total 
amount of €10.13 within the following 10 years.  
The program creates immediate e ffects by re ‐
ducing the need for medical treatment or health 
services for these children, generated throughout 
the observed period. Immediately a ft er implement ‐
ing the program, the program’s impact in pre ‐school 
educa ti on also is evident. When the children of 
these parents start primary school, the impact is 
transferred to that level. In the last year, the pro ‐
gram creates savings in the fields of addic ti on and 
juvenile delinquency. Because only parts of the im ‐
pacts were mone ti zed, and they were analyzed for 
10 years only, the actual SROI likely is higher. The 
summa ti on of impacts across the iden ti fied impact 
chains for each of the stakeholders amounts to 
€1,171,855. The program’s average annual impact 
is €117,185 and the average impact per par ti cipant 
in the 10 ‐year period amounts to €6,510. As ex ‐
plained previously, our calcula ti ons did not include 
e ffects of the IY that occur a ft er the observed 10 ‐
year period (for example, impacts in the field of un ‐
employment), or benefits that have been analyzed 
only qualita ti vely (for example, program benefits for 
parti cipants’ children). The es ti mated impact in the 
10 ‐year period (€1,171,855) is generated as the con ‐
sequence of a single (1 ‐year) implementa ti on of the 
program in 2018 and thus needs to be compared to 
the costs of IY implementa ti on in 2018, that is, 
€173,551. Each repe titi on of the program at the 
same scale generates impacts as calculated.  
 
4.5 Robustness Check 
Our calcula ti on of SROI is based on several as ‐
sump ti ons about the outcome parameters. To verify 
the results’ robustness to the chosen assump ti ons, 
we used the sensi ti vity analysis presented in Figure 
3. The baseline assump ti on on the value of costs 
was varied by as much as 50% up and down, and the 
corresponding SROI was calculated. Similarly, the 
program’s impacts on stakeholders were examined 
to determine how SROI changes if the program’s ef ‐
fect on each stakeholder group is increased or de ‐
creased by as much as 50%. Regardless of the 
direc ti on of the change and the type of impact, all 
recalculated SROIs were greater than 1, which con ‐
firms the robustness of the conclusion that the IY 
program is socially valuable and economically 
sound. 
Figure 2: Impact chain and results of the SROI analysis

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 91
As shown in Figure 3, the SROI index is most 
sensi ti ve to the assump ti on regarding inputs’ value. 
Compared with the mone ti za ti on of impacts, this 
value is rela ti vely more accurate and reliable. 
Among impacts, the assump ti ons regarding the ef ‐
fects on elementary schools and kindergartens are 
more cri ti cal than others for the value of SROI. Nev ‐
ertheless, even if individual e ffects are only half as 
large as assumed in our analysis (with other e ffects 
unchanged), the SROI value s ti ll is above 5. 
Finally, we calculated the cri ti cal value of an in ‐
dividual e ffect (with the others remaining un ‐
changed) for which SROI would equal 1. The annual 
program costs would have to increase by more than 
900% (for the volume of 180 par ti cipants) to bring 
the SROI index value to 1. 
The calculated cri ti cal values of assump ti ons re ‐
garding the impact on each stakeholder are nega ‐
ti ve. This means that the program has a SROI greater 
than 1 even if one of the stakeholder impacts does 
not arise, because the e ffects on other stakeholders 
are higher than the program costs. The nega ti ve crit ‐
ical values of assump ti ons also mean that the IY par ‐
en ti ng program would have a SROI less than 1 only 
if it generated damage, i.e., had adverse e ffects on 
the analyzed stakeholders, which, as we established, 
certainly is not the case.  
We further compared each par ti cular stake ‐
holder’s impact and the en ti re costs of the IY pro ‐
gram, and calculated the cri ti cal standalone impact 
size for each stakeholder . In pre ‐school educa ti on, a 
40% e ffect was assumed, whereas to achieve a SROI 
index higher than 1, at least a 31% e ffect is su fficient 
(with the e ffect on other stakeholders equal to 
zero). In the field of primary educa ti on, a 19% e ffect 
would be su fficient. In other fields, the cri ti cal level 
of the e ffect, in the absence of all other e ffects, is 
higher than the value assumed in the analysis, be ‐
cause their impact is rela ti vely small. 
 
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 
Increasing requirements for disclosure of envi ‐
ronmental, social, and governance informa ti on and 
policies are promp ti ng companies and nonprofit or ‐
ganiza ti ons to consider the extent to which they are 
Figure 3: Robustness of the SROI index to changes in the basic scenario assump ti ons about program costs 
and e ffects on stakeholders

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis
92
prepared to meet these expecta ti ons. Over the last 
decade, the iden ti fica ti on, measuring, and repor ti ng 
of environmental impacts has become rela ti vely fa ‐
miliar, and is outlined by several frameworks. In con ‐
trast, guidelines for social and governance pillars, 
including a methodological framework for measure ‐
ment, largely are yet to be developed. This paper il ‐
lustrates how social impacts can be iden ti fied, 
measured, and even mone ti zed using the SROI ap ‐
proach. Unlike other economic evalua ti on methods, 
such as the CBA, the SROI approach focuses on a 
wider set of a ffected stakeholders. Another dis ti n ‐
guishing characteris ti c is that only the di fference be ‐
tween the e ffects that would have occurred without 
and with a preven ti ve program is considered to be 
an impact. We consider both characteris ti cs to be a 
dis ti nc ti ve advantage of the SROI method as a 
methodological ground for iden ti fying and measur ‐
ing social impacts. In the previous literature, the dif ‐
ficulty of assigning a financial value to “so ft 
outcomes” has been iden ti fied as a major problem 
(e.g., Banke ‐Thomas et al., 2015). 
In our paper, we highlighted the importance of 
iden ti fying the relevant stakeholders [and not nec ‐
essarily all of them (e.g., Antonaras et al., 2011; 
Banke ‐Thomas et al., 2015)] and demonstrated how 
to address the cri ti cal decisions regarding the selec ‐
ti on and collec ti on of data. Trade ‐o ffs between hav ‐
ing more or having the relevant data are to be 
expected, and a sensible compromise must be 
reached to finalize the analysis. Similar to previous 
SROI studies, we focused only on the impacts on 
those stakeholders for whom the program’s e ffects 
are most substan ti al (Antonaras et al., 2011) and for 
which data were available: children, parents, pre ‐
school and primary educa ti on ins ti tu ti ons, health ‐
care ins ti tu ti ons, and society. The program also has 
impacts in other areas, which we assessed only 
qualita ti vely and not monetarily; for example, ef ‐
fects on parents and families, delinquency and 
crime, unemployment, and chronic physical and 
mental illness in adulthood.  
Recent SROI guidance does not recommend 
comparing SROI metrics across di fferent ac ti vi ti es, 
whereas the CBA is designed to be comparable in 
such a way. The emphasis on stakeholder involve ‐
ment leads to diverse sets of indicators, and there ‐
fore to di fficul ti es in comparing like with like. This is 
the limita ti on of the SROI method, which Maier et 
al. (2015) referred to as commensura ti on, in which 
di fferent en titi es are compared according to a com ‐
mon metric. Comparability between social invest ‐
ments is limited. However, in Maier et al.’s opinion, 
comparability could be increased if calcula ti on pro ‐
cedures such as discount rates, deadweights, and 
proxies were standardized further, and the same 
scale or environment could be ensured.  
Another cri ti cal part of the analysis is the choice 
of the period analyzed, as noted by Banke ‐Thomas 
et al. (2015). In this study, we used a 10 ‐year period 
a ft er the implementa ti on because the most relevant 
e ffects were expected to occur within this ti me 
frame. However, a longer or shorter analy ti c horizon 
might lead to di fferent conclusions. Therefore, as a 
contribu ti on of our study, we highlight two princi ‐
ples that should be followed when selec ti ng the 
ti me frame for the analysis: (1) choose the period 
conserva ti vely, i.e., es ti mate the minimum ti me 
frame in which most, but not all, e ffects can be ex ‐
pected to occur; and (2) conduct a sensi ti vity anal ‐
ysis, i.e., use calcula ti ons to determine the cri ti cal 
assump ti ons that considerably a ffect the conclu ‐
sions if the ti me frame is changed to be shorter or 
longer than the baseline.  
Related to the preceding points is the decision 
about how thoroughly the negative vs. positive ef ‐
fects (or costs and benefits) should be included. 
Namely, implementing measures such as SROI is 
relatively feasible when information about pro ‐
gram outcomes, cost, and revenue already is being 
collected by an organization (Cordes, 2017). In 
many situations, the information about the costs 
of activities is more familiar, available, and pre ‐
dictable than information about expected bene ‐
fits. Thus, it is advisable that costs (or negative 
effects) are included fully in the analysis and cau ‐
tion is exerted in terms of expected positive ef ‐
fects. Such a conservative approach leads to an 
underestimated SROI value and safeguards against 
enthusiastic or overrated expectations of positive 
social returns. Of course, such a conservative 
stance may prevent some socially desirable activ ‐
ities from being implemented; therefore, a bal ‐
ance between both views is needed. The decision 
about how thoroughly the effects should be in ‐
cluded is illustrated in our example, in which the 

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 93
calculated total impact value comprised only a 
part of the program’s actual positive effects, 
whereas program implementation costs were in ‐
cluded in full.  
Finally, the process and results of the SROI 
analysis can be exploited beyond the mere (one ‐
time) demonstration or reporting of the organiza ‐
tional aggregate social impact to (potential) 
investors, funders, or other stakeholders (Flock ‐
hart, 2005). When the impact model is well under ‐
stood, good groundwork has been set up for 
socially responsible management (Then et al., 
2017). Through this analysis, organizations can 
identify, for example, which activities and issues 
could be problematic from the ESG perspective, 
or, conversely, where new opportunities might 
open up. The information gathered and processed 
in the SROI analysis also can feed into the organi ‐
zational strategy development process and even ‐
tually also be incorporated into strategy 
implementation or performance management 
tools. SROI reduces complexity by condensing the 
difficult task of communicating value to one fig ‐
ure. This figure can be used as a tool to shape pub ‐
lic opinion about distributive justice or to 
legitimize NPOs by communicating their impact to 
audiences who are less receptive to qualitative ev ‐
idence (Maier et al., 2015). 
Our experience shows that the scope of avail ‐
able data limits the quality of social impact anal ‐
yses. This implies that organizations may need to 
increase the availability and range of available 
data to measure the outputs, outcomes, and im ‐
pacts of programs (Meng & Shi, 2017). Therefore, 
future research in this area could focus on im ‐
proving the availability of external data, such as 
shared databases of proxy data. However, be ‐
cause there is a significant deficit of existing ex ‐
amples of social impact analysis (benchmarks), 
many organizations often will discover the type 
and scope of data they need only ex post—after 
their first attempt to conduct such an analysis. 
Therefore, further research in this area could pro ‐
vide valuable examples of the type and range of 
data needed for SROI analysis in specific contexts. 
Furthermore, as is evident from our case, a lon ‐
gitudinal approach to data collection may be re ‐
quired to measure accurately the long ‐term 
effects and monitor the evolution of social im ‐
pacts over time for different stakeholders.  
Despite the aforementioned limitations, we 
believe that our study makes an important con ‐
tribution to the literature in this area and pro ‐
vides a practical reference example for 
practitioners and researchers. The activities of 
many different organizations can be analyzed in a 
similar way whenever they are characterized by a 
broad range of indirect individual and social ef ‐
fects in addition to the intended direct effects for 
the target population. In particular, our account 
of measuring effects by estimating avoided costs 
can be generalized to other organizations and 
sectors whose activities aim to prevent adverse 
outcomes in society, such as education, sport and 
recreation, and social work. 

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 94
REFERENCES 
Adler, M. D. (2006). QALY’s and Policy Evalua ti on: A New 
Perspec ti ve. Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and 
Ethics, 6(1), 1–92. 
Anderluh, M. (2017). Na črt delovanja Centra za dokazano 
u činkovite programe zgodnjih intervenc na podro čju 
duševnega zdravja otrok. Univerzitetni klini čni center, 
Pediatrična klinika. (in English: Ac ti on plan of the Cen ‐
ter for Proven E ffec ti ve Early Childhood Mental Health 
Interven ti on Programs. University Medical Center, Pe ‐
diatric Clinic) 
Antonaras, A., Iacovidou, M., & Memtsa, C. (2011). Mea ‐
suring social return on investment using the EBEN GR 
business ethics excellence model. Verslo ir teis ės aktu ‐
alijos/Current Issues of Business and Law, 6(1), 69–89. 
Arvidson, M., Lyon, F., McKay, S., & Moro, D. (2013). Valu ‐
ing the social? The nature and controversies of mea ‐
suring social return on investment (SROI). Voluntary 
Sector Review, 4(1), 3 ‐18. 
Banke ‐Thomas, A. O., Madaj, B., Charles, A., & van den 
Broek, N. (2015). Social Return on Investment (SROI) 
methodology to account for value for money of public 
health interven ti ons: a systema ti c review. BMC public 
health, 15(1), 1 ‐14. 
Burdge, R. J. (2003). The Prac ti ce of Social Impact Assess ‐
ment ‐Background. Impact Assessment and Project 
Appraisal, 21(2), 84–88. 
Chisholm, D., Knapp, M. R. J., Knudsen, H. C., Amaddeo, F ., 
Gaite, L., Van Wijngaarden, B., & EPSILON Study Group. 
(2000). Client socio ‐demographic and service receipt 
inventory–European version: development of an in ‐
strument for interna ti onal research: EPSILON Study 5. 
The Bri ti sh Journal of Psychiatry, 177(S39), s28‐s33. 
Cleary, A., Fitzgerald, M., & Nixon, E. (2004). From child 
to adult: a longitudinal study of Irish children and their 
families. University College Dublin (UCD). 
Colman, I., Murray, J., Abbo tt , R. A., Maughan, B., Kuh, D., 
Croudace, T . J., & Jones, P . B. (2009). Outcomes of con ‐
duct problems in adolescence: 40 year follow ‐up of 
na ti onal cohort. Bri ti sh medical journal, 338, a2981. 
Copeland, W. E., Shanahan, L., Costello, E. J., & Angold, 
A. (2009). Childhood and adolescent psychiatric dis ‐
orders as predictors of young adult disorders. 
Archives of general psychiatry, 66(7), 764 ‐772. 
Cordes, J. J. (2017). Using cost ‐benefit analysis and social 
return on investment to evaluate the impact of social 
enterprise: Promises, implementa ti on, and limita ‐
ti ons. Evalua ti on and program planning, 64, 98 ‐104. 
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis
EXTENDED SUMMARY/IZVLE ČEK 
Vse ve čje zahteve glede obvladovanja okoljskih in družbenih dejavnikov ter dejavnikov korporaci ‐
jskega upravljanja (ang. Environmental, Social and Governance; ESG) spodbujajo podjetja in neprofitne 
organizacije k razmisleku glede njihove pripravljenos ti na izpolnjevanje takšnih pri čakovanj. Spodbude 
za merjenje in poro čanje o družbenem vplivu podje ti j prihajajo tako s trga, od kupcev kot konkurentov, 
kot tudi s strani regulatorjev. Namen tega prispevka je pomaga ti organizacijam, ki se soo čajo z izzivom 
merjenja družbenega u činka svojih dejavnos ti . V članku na primeru ponazorimo, kako je mogo če s 
pristopom SROI iden ti ficira ti , izmeri ti in denarju izrazi ti družbene u činke. Metoda SROI se osredoto ča 
na obsežen nabor deležnikov, kot u činek pa šteje samo razlika med u činki, ki bi se pojavili brez anal ‐
izirane ak ti vnos ti in z njo. Za študijo primera uporabljamo program starševstva, katerega cilj je izboljša ti 
starševske spretnos ti in s tem zmanjša ti čustvene in vedenjske težave otrok. Program vodi neprofitna 
organizacija, vendar je mogo če na podoben na čin analizira ti tudi dejavnos ti znotraj profitnega sektorja, 
kadar je zanje poleg predvidenih neposrednih u činkov zna čilen širok spekter posrednih individualnih 
in družbenih u činkov. V študiji smo ovredno ti li družbene u činke v desetletnem obdobju po izvedbi 
programa, saj so bili v tem časovnem okviru pri čakovani najpomembnejši u činki. V članku poudarjamo 
vlogo izbire dolžine obdobja merjenja u činkov ter natan čnos ti vklju čevanja stroškov izvedbe analizirane 
ak ti vnos ti in njenih u činkov. Pri tem izpostavljamo pomen razpoložljivos ti in obsega u činkov, ki jih za ‐
jamemo s podatki. Poudarjamo tudi, da so rezulta ti analize SROI uporabni ne le za poro čanje o 
družbenem u činku organizacije vlagateljem in drugim deležnikom, temve č tudi kot dobro podlaga za 
družbeno odgovorno upravljanje preko vklju čevanja ugotovitev analize SROI v proces razvoja organi ‐
zacijske strategije ter s časoma tudi v orodja za obvladovanje uspešnos ti .

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022 95
Edwards, R. T ., & Lawrence, C. L. (2021). ‘What You See is 
All There is’: the importance of heuris ti cs in cost ‐ben ‐
efit analysis (CBA) and social return on investment 
(SROI) in the evalua ti on of public health interven ‐
ti ons. Applied Health Economics and Health Pol ‐
icy, 19(5), 653 ‐664. 
European Commission (2022a). Interna ti onal Pla tf orm on 
Sustainable Finance. Retrieved 2022 May 18 from 
h tt ps://ec.europa.eu/info/business ‐economy ‐
euro/banking ‐and ‐finance/sustainable ‐finance/inter ‐
na ti onal ‐pla tf orm ‐sustainable ‐finance_en 
European Commission. (2014). Non ‐Financial Repor ti ng 
Direc ti ve 2014/95/EU. Retrieved 2022, May 5 from 
h tt ps://eur ‐lex.europa.eu/legal ‐content/EN/TXT/ ‐
PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0095&from=EN  
European Commission (2020b). Sustainable finance – envi ‐
ronmental, social and governance criteria (benchmarks). 
Retrieved 2022, May 5 from h tt ps://ec.europa.eu/ ‐
info/law/be tt er ‐regula ti on/have ‐your ‐say/ini ti a ti ves/ ‐
12019 ‐Sustainable ‐finance ‐environmental ‐social ‐and ‐go
vernance ‐criteria ‐benchmarks ‐_en 
European Commission (2020c). Final report on EU taxon ‐
omy. Retrieved 2022 May 5 from h tt ps:// ‐
ec.eur opa.eu/ in f o/ sit es/de f ault/files/business_econo
my_euro/banking_and_finance/documents/200309 ‐
sustainable ‐finance ‐teg ‐final ‐report ‐
taxonomy_en.pdf 
European Commission. (2022d). Proposal for a Direc ti ve on 
corporate sustainability due diligence and annex. Re ‐
trieved 2022, May 5 from h tt ps://ec.europa.eu/info/pub ‐
lica ti ons/210421 ‐sustainable ‐finance ‐communica ti on_e
n#csrd. 
Evans, S., Davies, S., Williams, M., & Hutchings, J. (2015). 
Short ‐term benefits from the incredible years parents 
and babies programme in Powys. Community Prac ti ‐
ti oner, 88(9), 46 ‐49. 
Fergusson, D. M., John Horwood, L., & Ridder, E. M. 
(2005). Show me the child at seven: the conse ‐
quences of conduct problems in childhood for psy ‐
chosocial func ti oning in adulthood. Journal of child 
psychology and psychiatry, 46(8), 837 ‐849. 
Flockhart, A. (2005). Raising the profile of social enter ‐
prises: the use of social return on investment (SROI) 
and investment ready tools (IRT) to bridge the financial 
credibility gap. Social Enterprise Journal, 1(1), 29 ‐ 42.  
Freudenburg, W . R. (1986). Social Impact Assessment. An ‐
nual Review of Sociology, 12, 451–78; 
Gair, C. (2002). A Report from the Good Ship SROI. 
h tt p://www.redf.org/pub_nse.htm. 
Gardner, F. E. (1987). Posi ti ve interac ti on between moth ‐
ers and conduct ‐problem children: Is there training 
for harmony as well as figh ti ng?. Journal of Abnormal 
Child Psychology, 15(2), 283 ‐293. 
Global Impact Inves ti ng Ra ti ngs System (GIIRS). (2018). 
The Rockefeller Founda ti on. h tt p://giirs.org/. 
Gosselin, V., Boccanfuso, D., & Laberge, S. (2020). Social 
return on investment (SROI) method to evaluate phys ‐
ical ac ti vity and sport interven ti ons: a systema ti c re ‐
view. Interna ti onal Journal of Behavioral Nutri ti on 
and Physical Ac ti vity, 17(1), 1 ‐11. 
Hammi tt , J. K., & Haninger, K. (2011). Valuing Morbidity 
Risk: Willingness to Pay per Quality ‐Adjusted Life Year. 
Working paper for the 38th Seminar of the European 
Group of Risk and Insurance Economists, September 
19–21, Vienna, Austria. 
Hutchings, J., Bywater, T ., Daley, D., Gardner, F., Whitaker, 
C., Jones, K., … Edwards, R.T. (2007). Paren ti ng inter ‐
ven ti on in Sure Start services for children at risk of de ‐
veloping conduct disorder: pragma ti c randomised 
controlled trial. BMJ, 334(7595), 678 ‐82. 
Impact Reporti ng and Investment Standards (IRIS). 
(2009). IRIS Project Overview. h tt p://iris.thegiin.org/. 
Interna ti onal Commi tt ee on Principles and Guidelines for 
Social Impact Assessment (ICPGSIA). (2003). The In ‐
terorganiza ti onal Commi tt ee on Principles and 
Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment: Principles 
and Guidelines for Social Impact Assessment in the 
USA. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 
21(3), 231–50. 
Kosma č, G. (2018). Zapornik je leta 2017 davkopla čevalce 
stal slabih 80 evrov dnevno (In English: In 2017, a pris ‐
oner costed taxpayers just under € 80 a day). April 
17
th
, 2018. Retrieved 2019, August 1 from 
h tt ps://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/zapornik ‐je ‐leta ‐
2017 ‐davkoplacevalce ‐stal ‐slabih ‐80 ‐evrov ‐
dnevno/452225. 
Kuzma, M., Mirkovi ć, A., Sve ti na M., & Anderluh, M. 
(2017). Evalvacija u činkovitos ti programa NL. Norwvay 
Grants, Služba vlade RS za razvoj in evropsko kohezi ‐
jsko poli ti ko, Univerzitetni klini čni center (in English: 
Evalua ti on of the IY program’s e ffec ti veness. Norwvay 
Grants, Government O ffice for Development and Eu ‐
ropean Cohesion Policy, University Medical Center).  
Layard, R. and Glaister, S. (1994) Cost–benefit analysis. 
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Maier, F., Schober, C., Simsa, R., & Millner, R. (2015). SROI 
as a method for evalua ti on research: Understanding 
merits and limita ti ons. Voluntas: Interna ti onal Journal 
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organiza ti ons, 26(5), 
1805 ‐1830.  
Mala ulica (2017). Prijava na javni razpis za sofinan ‐
ciranje programov varovanja in krepitve zdravja za 
leta 2017, 2018 in 2019 (in English: Application for 
the public tender for co ‐financing of health pro ‐
tection and promotion programs for 2017, 2018 
and 2019). 

Dynamic Rela ti onships Management Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, November 2022
Mojca Marc, Nina Ponikvar: How to Measure Our Impact on Society: An Illustra ti on of Social Impact Analysis
96
Meng, X. ‐L., & Shi, F. ‐G. (2017). A generalized fuzzy data 
envelopment analysis with restricted fuzzy sets and 
determined constraint condi ti on 1. Journal of Intelli ‐
gent & Fuzzy Systems, 33(3), 1895–1905. 
Men ti ng, A. T ., de Castro, B. O., & Ma tt hys, W . (2013). E ffec ‐
ti veness of the Incredible Years parent training to modify 
disrup ti ve and prosocial child behavior: A meta ‐analy ti c 
review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(8), 901 ‐913. 
Millar, R., & Hall, K. (2013). Social return on investment 
(SROI) and performance measurement: The opportuni ‐
ti es and barriers for social enterprises in health and so ‐
cial care. Public Management Review, 15(6), 923 ‐941. 
MIZŠ – Ministrstvo za izobraževanje in šport (in English: 
Ministry of Educa ti on and Sports). (2018). Okrožnica 
MIZŠ 6034 ‐113/2017/1.  
MJU – Ministrstvo za javno upravo (in English: Ministry 
of Public Administra ti on). (2019). Pla čna lestvica in 
vrednost nominalnih osnov (in English: Salary scale 
and value of nominal bases). Retrieved 2019, 15 May 
from h tt p://www.mju.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/ ‐
place_v_javnem_sektorju/veljavna_placna_lestvica/ 
Mook, L., ed. (2013). Accoun ti ng for Social Value. To r o n t o : 
University of Toronto Press. 
Nicholls, J. 2007. Why Measuring and Communica ti ng So ‐
cial Value can help Social Enterprise become More 
Compe titi ve. London: Cabinet O ffice.  
NIJZ – Nacionalni inš ti tut za javno zdravje (in English: Na ‐
ti onal Ins ti tute of Public Health). (2016). Stanje na po ‐
dro čju prepovedanih drog v Sloveniji 2016 (In English: 
Situa ti on in the field of illicit drugs in Slovenia 2016). 
Retrieved 2019, 20 May from h tt ps://www.nijz.si/ ‐
sl/publikacije/stanje ‐na ‐podrocju ‐prepovedanih ‐
drog ‐v ‐sloveniji ‐2016 
O’Faircheallaigh, C. (2009). E ffec ti veness in Social Impact 
Assessment: Aboriginal Peoples and Resource Devel ‐
opment in Australia. Impact Assessment and Project 
Appraisal, 27(2), 95–110. 
O’Neill, D., McGilloway, S., Donnelly, M., Bywater, T ., & Kelly, 
P . (2010). A Cost ‐Benefit Analysis of Early Childhood In ‐
terven ti on: Evidence from an Experimental Evalua ti on 
of the Incredible Years Paren ti ng Program. Economics, 
Finance and Accoun ti ng Department Working Paper Se ‐
ries. Department of Economics, Finance and Account ‐
ing, Na ti onal University of Ireland ‐ Maynooth 
O’Neill, D., McGilloway, S., Donnelly, M., Bywater, T., & 
Kelly, P . (2013). A cost ‐e ffec ti veness analysis of the In ‐
credible Years paren ti ng programme in reducing 
childhood health inequali ti es. The European Journal 
of Health Economics, 14(1), 85 ‐94. 
Pardini, D., & Frick, P. J. (2013). Mul ti ple developmental 
pathways to conduct disorder: Current conceptualiza ‐
ti ons and clinical implica ti ons. Journal of the Canadian 
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 22(1), 20. 
Richmond, B. J., L. Mook, and J. Quarter. (2003). Social 
Accoun ti ng for Nonprofits: Two Models. Nonprofit 
Management & Leadership, 13(4), 308–24. 
Sco tt , S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J., & Maughan, B. (2001). 
Financial cost of social exclusion: follow up study of an ‐
ti social children into adulthood. Bmj, 323(7306), 191.  
Sethi, D., Yon, Y ., Parekh, N., Anderson, T ., Huber, J., Rako ‐
vac, I., & Meinck, F. (2018). European status report on 
preven ti ng child maltreatment. Copenhagen, DK: 
WHO Regional O ffice for Europe. 
SURS ‐ Sta ti s tič ni urad RS (in English: Republic of Slovenia 
Sta ti s ti cal O ffice). (2019). Povpre čna bruto pla ča za 
december 2018 za 1,7 % nižja od plače za november 
2018 (in English: The average gross salary for Decem ‐
ber 2018 is 1.7% lower than the salary for November 
2018). Retrieved 2019, 20 June from h tt ps:// ‐
www.stat.si/StatWebPDF/PrikaziPDF.aspx?id=7932&l
ang=sl 
Thapar, A., Pine, D. S., Sco tt , S., Snowling, M. J., & Taylor, 
E. A. (Eds.). (2017). Ru tt er’s child and adolescent psy ‐
chiatry. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.  
Then, V, Schober, C., Rauscher, O, & Kehl, K. (2017). Social 
Return on Investment Analysis. Palgrave Studies in Im ‐
pact Finance. Cham, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 
United Na ti ons (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 
Agenda for Sustainable Development. Retrieved 2019, 
10 May from h tt ps://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda