Evaluating grant applications: how to spot real social value
Grant-makers can spot genuine social value in applications by applying SROI principles: looking for clear stakeholder identification, meaningful outcome evidence, and proportionate attribution rather than vague claims.
Organisations responsible for awarding grants play an important role in deciding where funding goes and how effectively it contributes to social change. Accurately identifying genuine social value among numerous applications can be challenging. This article outlines how to evaluate grant applications effectively by applying the Social Return on Investment (SROI) methodology.
Social value includes the broader social, economic, and environmental impacts that an initiative delivers, beyond straightforward outputs. Unlike financial returns, social value considers factors such as improved community wellbeing, increased social cohesion, and long-term sustainability.
When grant applications promise social value, it is essential to assess these claims rigorously. Thorough evaluation ensures funding supports projects that achieve clear, lasting impacts aligned with organisational objectives and community needs.
How the SROI approach supports identifying genuine social value
Social Return on Investment (SROI) provides a systematic, evidence-based framework to measure the social value of proposed projects. By translating social outcomes into monetary values, SROI enables clear comparisons and informed decision-making.
The SROI approach involves:
-
Stakeholder identification: Identifying clearly who will be affected or benefit from the project.
-
Outcome mapping: Demonstrating precisely how project activities lead to measurable social outcomes.
-
Impact valuation: Assigning financial proxies to social, environmental, and economic outcomes to quantify impact.
-
Attribution: Recognising contributions from other factors or initiatives to the outcomes achieved.
Evaluating grant applications with an outcome-based approach
When evaluating grant applications, consider the following indicators:
-
Explicit Theory of Change: Applications should clearly explain the logical relationship between activities and expected outcomes. For instance, a community gardening project might describe how gardening training sessions improve participants’ mental wellbeing and nutrition.
-
Evidence of stakeholder engagement: Genuine engagement involves actively consulting or collaborating with beneficiaries. An employment support programme could show how input from local job seekers shaped the project’s design to meet their specific needs.
-
Realistic and validated outcomes: Outcomes should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART). A youth mentoring scheme could use recognised frameworks to measure changes in school attendance, academic achievement, or reductions in antisocial behaviour.
-
Long-term sustainability: Effective projects outline clearly how impacts will continue after funding ceases. For example, a renewable energy project might demonstrate sustainability through planned maintenance funded by ongoing community subscriptions or generated income.
Evaluators must avoid placing excessive emphasis on easily measurable outputs (e.g., number of training sessions or workshops delivered) without adequately considering genuine outcomes and impact. Outputs alone do not demonstrate social value; it's critical to focus on the meaningful changes experienced by beneficiaries and the wider community.
While quantitative data helps objectively measure impact, qualitative feedback provides important insights into the lived experience of beneficiaries. Stories, case studies, and direct feedback from stakeholders can highlight nuances and subtleties that numbers alone may miss, providing a richer, more comprehensive understanding of social impact.
Leveraging the Social Value Engine for robust evaluation
The Social Value Engine offers evaluators a reliable, validated set of metrics, simplifying the process of assessing social value. To effectively use the Social Value Engine:
-
Select relevant proxies: Choose appropriate financial proxies from the engine’s extensive database to accurately represent the value of project outcomes. For example, using proxies related to improved health or reduced crime rates when evaluating community health initiatives or youth intervention programmes.
-
Combine qualitative and quantitative data: Supplement quantitative SROI calculations with qualitative insights from stakeholder feedback, case studies, or narrative reports. This approach provides a richer understanding of the project's real-world impacts and context.
-
Compare initiatives: Utilise the engine's capacity for comparing similar projects or outcomes to gauge the relative effectiveness and value of proposed initiatives.
Conclusion
Effective grant evaluation demands a balanced approach that incorporates both rigorous quantitative analysis and meaningful qualitative insights. By systematically applying the SROI methodology and utilising tools like the Social Value Engine, evaluators can more accurately identify and support projects delivering genuine and lasting social impact.
Frequently asked questions
Expand a question to read the answer.
The clearest signal is a well-constructed Theory of Change that shows a logical, evidenced connection between the activities proposed and the outcomes claimed. Applications that simply list activities and assert that they will produce benefits, without explaining how or for whom, are offering outputs rather than social value. Look for applications that identify specific beneficiaries, describe what will change for them, and reference evidence or prior experience that supports those claims.
Not all meaningful outcomes can be given a financial value, and evaluators should not automatically discount unquantified claims. What matters is whether the claim is plausible, specific, and supported by some form of evidence, whether qualitative case studies, stakeholder feedback, or relevant secondary research. The risk to guard against is vague, aspirational language that sounds impressive but contains no testable claim. An outcome does not need to be monetised to be credible; it does need to be clearly described and evidenced.
Attribution asks how much of the claimed outcome is genuinely the result of the funded project, rather than factors that would have happened anyway or contributions from other organisations. Strong applications will acknowledge where other factors are at play, describe any overlap with similar provision in the area, and make a reasoned case for the share of the outcome that can be attributed to the project. Applications that claim sole credit for outcomes in complex, multi-agency contexts should be scrutinised carefully. For a fuller explanation of attribution alongside deadweight and displacement, see our guide on impact adjustments.
SROI ratios can be useful for comparing the relative efficiency of different proposals, but they require careful handling. A high ratio does not automatically indicate a stronger application: it may reflect generous proxy selection, underestimated costs, or double-counting of benefits. Evaluators should look at what proxies were used, how costs were defined, and whether the ratio is plausible given the nature and scale of the activities proposed. Where applications use different methodologies, direct comparison of ratios will be misleading.
No, and doing so would likely be disproportionate for smaller applicants. The principle of proportionality applies to grant evaluation as much as to measurement itself: requiring a full evaluative SROI from a community group seeking a modest grant would create barriers to entry and disadvantage organisations that lack in-house expertise. A more practical approach is to assess whether the application demonstrates clear outcome thinking, realistic assumptions, and a credible plan for tracking and reporting results, regardless of the methodology used.
Stay informed
Get insights on social value delivered to your inbox
