A Comparative Study on Social Impact of Community Based Inclusive Development Cases in Japan

Keywords (5 keywords maximum): CBID (Community Based Inclusive Development), CBR matrix, social enterprise, social impact, social innovation. Abstract Impact assessment has been one of the hottest issues in social sector over... [ view full abstract ]

Keywords (5 keywords maximum): CBID (Community Based Inclusive Development), CBR matrix, social enterprise, social impact, social innovation.

Abstract
Impact assessment has been one of the hottest issues in social sector over the world, and actually in Japan, not only researchers, but activists are very keen to pursue this theme in the field of social welfare. Though some progressive social enterprises have conducted Social Return on Investment (SROI) analysis, now the most popular quantitative method to estimate social impacts of activities and show them clearer to their stakeholders, they usually end unsuccessful because of two reasons. Firstly, the quantitative, measurable outcomes are uniquely limited based on the services they provide, the scale of the organization, and the like. Secondly, narrative stories are often more essential for their activities than quantitative measurements. As the social problems to solve and approaches to them vary a lot, even in the same specific field, each framework is highly customized according to background stories. This leads to that the result of impact assessment remains unique or special for each organization, and it would be unhelpful in comparative analysis. In this study, I will try to analyze social innovation cases in Japan comparatively, and would like to point out what the barrier to measure the impact of social innovation is, in the field of social welfare in Japan.

1) Short survey of literature:
Making impact map is a very significant process for both service users and providers. (SROI Network 2012) Through this mapping process, users can get key information for their decision making about the service to be selected, and providers can review or specify what the strength and/or weakness of their service is. In other words, the SROI impact map is useful not only as the evaluation tool, but also a management tool for social enterprises. However, this kind of evaluation framework is not adequate to analyze different cases in the similar field 'comparatively'. Though Simsa et al. (2014) suggests that SROI analysis is one of the comparison methods to evaluate impacts, it is also true, in Japan, that we do not have exhaustive and well-structured data to compare. There has been conducted very little SROI analysis regarding very limited, simple-to-understand issues like job assistance.
However, as mentioned above, comparative research is essential for both service users and providers. In particular, there has been a tremendous need for such comparative research in the field of livelihood support for disadvantaged people because this field is so close to everyday lives and most of them are human services, which are hard to be measured quantitatively. To meet such a need, the World Health Organization (WHO) had developed the “CBR matrix” (WHO 2004, WHO 2010, APCD 2011). The CBR matrix is a mapping tool to visualize and/or analyze the strategy for community based inclusive development (CBID), according to Thomas(2013).

2) Research question(s):
How can we analyze such wide variety of services and/or outcomes and compare them? Are there any hints in the CBR matrix? And how can we lower the arbitrariness of this kind of hybrid evaluation between quantitative and qualitative?

3) Methodology:
In this study, I will describe two comparative case studies: the first is the comparison of two different social enterprises both providing the livelihood support service for disadvantaged groups of people; and the second is the comparison of two different kinds of service provided by one same organization. In both case studies, I will refer to the CBR matrix, which is supposed to be useful to analyze outcomes of the livelihood service through the mapping process. Also, services (activities) of both organizations in this study are progressive enough as social innovation in the field of livelihood support for disadvantaged groups of people, and recognized as best practices of CBID in Japan.