The Troubled Families Programme : learning about policy impact through realist case study research

This article aims to critically explore how qualitative case study research that is founded on realist principles can fundamentally enhance social policy evaluation methodologies and, in turn, provide improved learning for policy makers and practitioners. We suggest these methodological advantages are accrued through the careful construction of theory-based explanations of 'how' policy programmes work thereby addressing the limitations of quasiexperimental methods - namely a focus on and prioritisation of outcome measures. The paper situates this key argument within wider, long-standing debates about evidence-based policy-making and what constitutes 'evidence' of impact in social policy. It does so through reflection on the contentious and contradictory knowledge claims that surround the Troubled Families Programme and evaluative claims regarding its efficacy. In conclusion and looking forward, we suggest that there remains much scope to combine 'intensive' qualitative case studies with 'extensive' quantitative measures within local and national evaluations of complex, multi-dimensional social policies, such as the Troubled Families Programme

Accounting for risk aversion, income distribution, and social welfare in cost-benefit analysis for flood risk management

Most cost-benefit analysis (CBA) textbooks and guidelines recognize the objective of CBAs to improve social welfare—a function of well-being of all individuals, conceptualized by utility. However, today's common practice to value flood risk management benefits as the reduction of the expected annual damages does not comply with this concept of social welfare, since it erroneously focuses on money instead of well-being (utility). Diminishing marginal utility of money implies that risk aversion and income differences should be taken into account while calculating the social welfare benefits of flood risk management. This is especially important when social vulnerability is high, damage compensation is incomplete and the distribution of income is regarded as unfair and income is not redistributed in other ways. Disagreement, misconception, complexity, untrained professionals, political economy and failing guidance are potential reasons why these concepts are not being applied. Compared to the common practice, a theoretically more sound social welfare approach to CBA for flood risk management leads to different conclusions on who to target, what to do, how much to invest and how to share risks, with increased emphasis on resiliency measures for population segments with low income and high social vulnerability. The social welfare approach to CBA, illustrated in this study in the context of floods, can be applied to other climate risks as well, such as storms, droughts, and landslide

Social Return on Investment (SROI) and performance measurement: the opportunities and barriers for social enterprises in health and social care

Social enterprises are being promoted as responsive and innovative way to deliver public services. As part of this promotion, these organizations are being required to demonstrate the social and economic value they generate. Social return on investment (SROI) is a performance measurement tool currently being encouraged to capture this impact. This paper draws on survey and interview data to analyse how SROI is used and understood in health and social care settings. It indicates that despite being accepted as an internationally recognized measurement tool for social enterprise, SROI is underused and undervalued due to practical and ideological barriers