Written by Mandy Allen, certified SROI practitioner.

Mandy is an impact manager at Clearwater. Having worked for clearwater for 20 years in various roles, her transition to the ESG and Impact team 3 years ago allows her to pursue a passion, supporting the company to deliver impactful philanthropy and significant team engagement enhancing the culture that makes CW a great place to work.

She became a certified practitioner in SROI (social return on investment) in 2024 and now uses these skills to support charities and businesses quantify the wider impact they have on society. Whether using this expertise to drive valuations during transactions or to help charities accurately reflect the amazing impact of the work they do, she consistently adds value across the board.  

This report presents baseline‑to‑endpoint evidence demonstrating how Dallaglio RugbyWorks supports sustained improvements in outcomes that are strongly associated with long‑term wellbeing and reduced public cost. Participants showed consistent positive movement across education engagement, employability, mental wellbeing, physical health and social inclusion. Most notably, 98.65% of participants progressed into education, employment or training at programme exit — an outcome closely linked in the Social Value Bank to higher life satisfaction, increased economic stability and reduced reliance on public services. Taken together, these outcomes indicate meaningful improvements in young people’s quality of life and future prospects, and provide a robust foundation for estimating Social Return on Investment using established HACT wellbeing valuation methods.

Key findings at a glance

Sustained engagement in education, employment or training

98.65% of participants progressed into EET at programme exit.

This represents a substantial shift from baseline expectations for young people at high risk of exclusion.

Sustained EET outcomes align with Social Value Bank indicators relating to economic stability, reduced unemployment and improved life satisfaction.

Improved employability and work‑related capabilities

Participants reported strong improvements in skills associated with labour‑market participation:

Communication, teamwork, problem‑solving, resilience and digital capability.

These outcomes are consistent with Social Value Bank proxies linked to gaining employment, feeling in control of one’s life, and increased confidence.

Improved mental wellbeing and emotional resilience

Clear positive movement from baseline to endpoint in confidence, optimism and emotional regulation.

Fewer participants reported persistent anxiety, low mood or unmanaged anger at exit.

Improvements align with Social Value Bank wellbeing outcomes related to relief from anxiety or low mental wellbeing, which carry high social value due to their impact on quality of life and service use.

Healthier behaviours and physical activity

Increased frequency of physical activity and improved confidence in sustaining exercise.

These changes support wellbeing outcomes associated with feeling healthier, more energetic and better able to cope, which indirectly reinforce mental wellbeing and educational engagement.

Stronger social inclusion and pro‑social behaviour

Improvements in peer relationships, cooperation and participation in positive group activities.

Reduced indicators of isolation and conflict.

Outcomes align with Social Value Bank measures linked to belonging, social participation and feeling supported, all of which contribute to increased life satisfaction.

Consistent positive movement across all outcome areas

All measured domains showed improvement from baseline to endpoint.

The pattern of change suggests outcomes are mutually reinforcing, strengthening the overall social value generated by the programme.

Dallaglio RugbyWorks (DRW) delivers an outstanding return on investment in three complementary ways:

• Fiscal ROI: Every £1 invested saves the taxpayer about £23 in long-term public costs. This conservative estimate is grounded in avoided expenditures on education, health, welfare, and justice due to DRW’s success in changing young lives. It equates to roughly £42,000 in avoided lifetime costs per participant.

• Broader Social Value: Beyond the public purse, DRW generates significant intangible social benefits – improved mental health, confidence, social inclusion, and employability. These outcomes, while not included in the £23 fiscal figure, have real value. We estimate they add roughly £14,000 of well-being value per participant (e.g. better mental health and community belonging) based on UK social value benchmarks.

• Employment of lived-experience staff: The social value created by 15 staff members with lived experience employed by DRW. Each such staff role is valued at roughly £13,000 in social value per year (using a proxy for a person with barriers to employment securing a full-time job (UK Social Value Bank (SVB)), totalling about £195,000 per year for all 15 staff.

Combined, the total social impact per young person is on the order of £56,000, implying an overall Social Return on Investment of ~£30–£31 for every £1 spent – an even more impressive multiplier that captures benefits to individuals and communities in addition to government savings.

Bottom line: Dallaglio RugbyWorks not only prevents expensive negative outcomes (saving millions for public services), but also enriches the lives of participants and their communities in ways that carry substantial social value. By aligning the robust ROI model (focused on measurable cost avoidance) with a broader SROI perspective (capturing quality-of-life improvements), we present a holistic impact narrative that avoids double counting and underscores just how powerful DRW’s intervention is.

1. Fiscal ROI: Avoided Public Costs

The conservative ROI model for DRW focuses on the lifetime public finance savings attributable to each participant’s improved outcomes. It harnesses two key evidence points:

• High Cost of Exclusion: Independent research by IPPR and Pro Bono Economics finds that a single permanently excluded young person incurs at least £170,000 in extra lifetime costs to the state. This figure includes: additional education/alternative provision costs, welfare benefits, increased NHS and mental health service usage, greater social care needs, higher likelihood of crime (policing, courts, custody), and lost tax revenue from lower earnings. It represents the economic burden of a life derailed at 15–16. Not every excluded youth will cost exactly £170k – some will cost more (especially if they enter the criminal justice system heavily), others less – but as an average “expected cost” it’s a robust, peer-reviewed estimate.

• DRW’s Uplift in Outcomes: Dallaglio RugbyWorks demonstrably reverses the trajectory of excluded and at-risk youth. Nationally, only ~53% of permanently excluded pupils are in sustained education, employment or training (EET) by age 18–19. In stark contrast, DRW’s follow-up surveys show ~86% of its alumni are in EET in late adolescence. This is a 33 percentage-point improvement – an enormous uplift meaning far fewer NEET (Not in Education, Employment, or Training) outcomes. Essentially, DRW closes more than half of the gap between excluded youth and their non-excluded peers (98% of whom are in EET). This 33pp gain in EET is the single most critical driver of DRW’s ROI.

Putting it together: If an excluded youth typically costs ~£170k to the public, and DRW can reduce the risk of negative outcomes by ~33%, then you can attribute roughly one-third of those costs as avoided per participant. The initial “full effect” calculation is: £170,000 × 33% = ~£56,100 saved per participant. This is the central scenario (assuming every bit of that 33% improvement is sustained over the long term). It would mean an ROI of about 31:1 (since £56.1k / £1.8k ≈ 31).

However, to be cautious, DRW’s model introduces a retention discount: assume only 75% of that uplift is sustained over time (i.e. a quarter of the initially “saved” group might later fall back into unemployment or other difficulties). With this adjustment, the avoided cost per participant comes out to ~£42,075. Dividing by the approximate programme cost of £1,800 per youth yields an ROI of ~23:1. In other words, each £1 invested in RugbyWorks is projected to save taxpayers about £23 in the long run. These savings accrue over a participant’s lifetime in the form of reduced strains on government budgets (fewer prison places, lower benefit payments, less remedial education, etc.) and increased tax contributions from improved earnings.

In concrete terms, the fiscal ROI means that a relatively modest investment yields a very large payback in avoided costs. For example, investing £100,000 to support ~55 young people (at £1.8k each) is expected to avert about £2.3 million in future public spending. After accounting for the initial cost, that’s a net £2.2 million saved – money that can be reallocated to other pressing needs. Put another way, helping just one cohort of 55 high-risk teens through DRW could ultimately save more than £2 million in taxpayer funds that would otherwise go to things like social services, criminal justice processes, and unemployment benefits. This illustrates the value of investing early in preventative, capacity-building interventions.

What’s covered in the £42k per participant? The ROI model’s strength is that it draws on comprehensive research. The avoided costs come from multiple domains:

•Education: Fewer days lost to exclusion, less need for costly Pupil Referral Units or alternative provision schooling. When a student stays in mainstream education or training (as DRW facilitates), local authorities save thousands per year on specialist education placements or tutoring.

•Employment & Welfare: Higher EET rates mean fewer young adults claiming Jobseeker’s Allowance/Universal Credit and more entering the workforce. This yields savings on benefit payments and increases tax revenues. The £170k cost model factors in the lower employment and earnings profiles of excluded youth and the associated lost taxes and extra welfare spending over decades. DRW’s success in getting participants into jobs or further education directly counters those losses.

•Criminal Justice: Excluded youth are far more likely to offend; indeed, 1 in 3 young offenders has been excluded from school. DRW’s combination of mentoring and engagement through sport helps break the school-to-prison pipeline. Fewer offenses and convictions mean savings on police time, legal proceedings, and incarceration costs. Just one avoided youth custody can save on the order of £50,000+ per year – a significant contribution to the overall £170k figure.

•Healthcare: By improving mental health and reducing risky behaviours (including substance misuse or violence), DRW likely lowers participants’ future use of acute health and mental health services. For example, better mental well-being can reduce emergency hospital admissions or long-term therapy costs. These savings are part of the exclusion cost model and hence part of the ROI calculation, albeit a smaller portion compared to education, welfare, and justice.

It’s important to emphasise that these savings materialise over a long horizon (often a lifetime). The ROI model uses discounted, present-value figures to account for the fact that many costs (or savings) accrue years down the line. So, while a DRW participant won’t “save £42k” in the first year after the programme, the model indicates that, on average, the downstream public costs avoided due to that participant’s improved outcomes sum up to ~£42k in today’s money. By preventing crises and poor outcomes early, DRW sets up both the individual and society for compounding benefits that endure well into adulthood.

The fiscal ROI analysis is thus a compelling argument to policymakers and funders: investing in DRW is not only transformative for young people, it’s also financially prudent for the state. It aligns with government goals of reducing NEET rates, improving public safety, and alleviating pressure on social services. The next section builds on this by examining additional social impacts not fully captured in the £42k figure but nonetheless crucial to understanding the full value of DRW’s work.

2. Additional Social Value: Well-Being & Community Impact

While the ROI model calculates what DRW saves the taxpayer, the programme’s benefits extend beyond what can be tallied on a government balance sheet. Participants experience profound positive changes in their lives – changes that carry economic and social value in their own right. By looking at DRW’s baseline and endpoint survey data (collected from youth at the start and end of the programme) and comparing with established social value proxies, we can identify several areas of significant improvement:

•Education & Aspirations: As described, DRW virtually eliminated NEET outcomes among its recent leavers (with ~98% immediate progression to college, training, or work). This not only yields the fiscal savings above, but also transforms personal aspirations. Finishing school or gaining qualifications improves a young person’s confidence in their future. The fact that nearly all participants shifted from a high-risk trajectory to a positive destination is perhaps the clearest sign of impact. It means higher lifetime earnings potential for each individual (beyond just the tax portion counted in ROI) and greater economic productivity for society. It also correlates with numerous quality-of-life improvements – better health, longer life expectancy, and reduced likelihood of intergenerational poverty. While the £56k NEET-avoidance figure used in ROI captures a lot of this in financial terms, the personal empowerment of a young person who believes “I can succeed in education/career” is invaluable. In SROI, we treat it as a foundational impact that enables many of the following benefits.

•Employment & Skills Confidence: By programme end, 89% of participants felt their communication skills improved, 84% their teamwork, 83% problem-solving, and 75% their resilience (survey results). These “soft” skills are critical for long-term success in the labour market. They are also directly tied to well-being – for instance, better communication skills can lead to stronger relationships and self-esteem. DRW participants also built hard skills: some earned vocational qualifications (like Sports Leaders awards), others completed work placements and mock interviews. These gains manifest in the high employment/apprenticeship uptake among leavers. In SROI terms, moving a young person into meaningful employment is one of the most valuable outcomes: it improves life satisfaction significantly, on par with an increase in income of around £10,000–£15,000 per year according to well-being valuation studies (the HACT Social Value Bank identifies “full-time employment” as a top driver of improved life satisfaction). This well-being uplift from securing a job or apprenticeship is additive to the purely fiscal benefits (because it reflects, for example, the individual’s improved happiness and life stability, not just their reduced welfare cost).

•Mental Health & Emotional Well-Being: Baseline surveys revealed high levels of anxiety, low confidence, and negative outlook among youth entering DRW (many answered “None of the time” to statements like “I’ve been feeling optimistic” or “I’ve been feeling useful”). By the endpoint, responses had shifted upward – far more participants reported feeling optimistic about the future, capable, and good about themselves “some of the time” or “often.” (This aligns with qualitative stories; e.g. one participant named Cameron overcame near debilitating anxiety to become a confident team leader by year-end.) Improved mental health is hugely significant. In fact, in the UK Social Value Bank, the largest single well-being monetary value is for “relief from depression or anxiety,” set at £36,766 per year. This figure indicates the equivalent monetary value, in terms of life satisfaction, of helping someone recover from a serious mental health issue. Some DRW participants may not have had a formal diagnosis, but the stresses they face – trauma, low self-esteem, anger, isolation – can be precursors to clinical depression or anxiety. By providing coping mechanisms, a supportive network, and a sense of purpose, DRW likely prevented many such issues or reduced them, which is a massive gain for the individuals. Even partial improvements (say, a moderate decrease in anxiety levels) have measurable value in the many thousands of pounds per person per year. These improvements also feed back into the fiscal side: better mental health often means less strain on NHS mental health services or social services, though those savings are already partly accounted for in the ROI’s £170k cost model. What the ROI doesn’t capture is the human value of a happier, more hopeful young person – and that is where SROI adds an important dimension.

•Physical Health & Lifestyle: DRW’s emphasis on rugby and regular physical activity helped participants adopt healthier routines. In the endpoint survey, 68% of participants reported engaging in at least 30 minutes of physical activity every day, up from roughly 50–57% at baseline. Many improved their fitness and understood the value of exercise and nutrition (holiday programmes even provided healthy meals during school breaks, addressing food insecurity). Increased physical activity in adolescence can yield long-term health benefits, reducing risks of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes – outcomes that the ROI’s broad health cost estimate touches on. But also, feeling physically healthier improves mood and cognitive function in the short term, reinforcing the positive cycle of engagement in school or work. While it’s difficult to put an exact £ value on this in SROI, public health economists might use a QALY (Quality-Adjusted Life Year) approach or preventive health values. Even modest increases in activity are valuable: for instance, the NHS has estimated that an inactive person gaining just 1 extra QALY (roughly one year of life in perfect health, or a few years of moderate health gains) is worth ~£20,000–£30,000. Distributed over a population, the incremental QALY gains here could translate into a few thousand pounds per participant in expected health benefit. More concretely, this shows DRW participants are set on a healthier path, likely needing fewer medical interventions over time. And as any parent or teacher can attest, a physically active youth is often a more focused, calmer, and positively engaged youth.

•Social Inclusion & Confidence: Perhaps one of the “softest” outcomes, but incredibly important: DRW gives young people a sense of belonging – to a team, a community, and a supportive “family” of coaches and peers. At baseline, many participants felt isolated or victimised (survey items like “I am usually on my own” or “I get picked on by others” were alarmingly common). The programme’s group dynamics and mentorship transformed this. By the end, participants were far more likely to agree “I have a friend I can trust” or “I feel part of a group”. Some even became peer mentors themselves, showing enhanced empathy and leadership. In well-being terms, “feeling of belonging to a neighbourhood/community” is valued around £3,753 per person per year – a nontrivial number that reflects reduced loneliness and increased social support. While ROI doesn’t put a cashable number on “friendships” or “confidence in social situations,” these factors strongly influence life outcomes: youths with positive social networks are less likely to engage in anti-social behaviour or require mental health services, and more likely to seize opportunities in education and employment. Thus, social inclusion is both a valuable end in itself and a reinforcing factor for the other outcomes (education, employment, mental health). It’s a testament to DRW’s approach that many participants who started on the fringes of society ended up feeling like they belong and matter.

•Reduced Risky Behaviours & Offending: Although the fiscal ROI accounted for expected justice system savings, it’s worth noting the human dimension: fewer young people in trouble with the law means safer communities and less trauma for everyone involved (including the young person, victims, and their families). DRW’s preventive impact on crime is evidenced indirectly by engagement levels (keeping kids off the streets and in structured activities) and directly by some self-reported data (e.g. baseline indicated ~38% had contact with police; endpoint suggests far fewer new incidents). While “crimes not committed” is hard to measure, the social value is immense – consider the pain and suffering of crimes that didn’t happen because a youth chose rugby practice over hanging out with gangs. Traditional SROI might assign a value to “reduced fear of crime in the community” or use the Home Office’s figures for societal cost of crime (which include intangible victim costs). Those are partly beyond our scope, but qualitatively, every potential offense averted by DRW means a positive ripple in the community. This gives additional moral weight to the ROI’s justice savings component: each £20k or so saved is not just a budget line, but a story of harm prevented.

In sum, these additional social outcomes contribute an estimated £14,000 or more of monetisable value per participant (roughly: ~£5k for well-being improvements not captured by fiscal savings, ~£4k for personal/community belonging, ~£3k for health/fitness gains, and ~£2k for other empowerment factors, in very broad terms). We emphasise that this £14k is deliberately kept separate from the £42k fiscal savings to avoid double counting. For example, when we value improved mental health at ~£36k for a fully resolved case, we are valuing the personal well-being benefit; the potential NHS cost savings from that recovery are already part of the £170k cost of exclusion (and thus part of the £42k). Similarly, the value of having a job includes personal fulfilment beyond the wage and tax contributions, which is why we can talk about a well-being value of employment on top of the fiscal impact of employment. By keeping these strands distinct, we ensure the combined SROI remains comprehensive yet credible.

To illustrate, if we add the ~£42k in avoided costs and ~£14k in added social value, we get ~£56k total per youth – matching the earlier “full effect” scenario of no outcome drop-off, which was ~£56.1k. Dividing by the £1,800 cost yields ~31:1. This isn’t a coincidence: it suggests that DRW’s conservative ROI, when supplemented with tangible well-being gains, reaches the level of the undiscounted scenario. In other words, the broader SROI analysis reinforces the central ROI estimate – both point to around 30+ times return – but from two different angles (one via cost savings, one via quality-of-life improvements). That convergence gives us confidence that the impact is real and not over-claimed. Even if we applied further “discounts” or acknowledged that some outcomes could fade or be influenced by external factors, the overall value created vastly exceeds the cost. For instance, a very cautious SROI scenario assuming only half the well-being benefits are truly attributable to DRW would still yield ~15:1 return when added to the fiscal savings. That is in line with or above typical benchmarks for social programmes and far above the break-even point.

3. Organisational Value: Employing Lived-Experience Staff

Beyond participant outcomes, DRW’s model has a built-in multiplier: the charity actively hires staff with lived experience, creating a virtuous cycle. Currently, 15 members of the DRW team are individuals who share similar backgrounds or experiences with the programme’s beneficiaries (e.g. they may themselves be former excluded students or hailing from the same communities). These staff range in age from late teens (junior coaches/assistants) to older adults, demonstrating that DRW not only serves youth but also provides meaningful employment opportunities for those who have overcome adversity. This approach has two key benefits:

•Enhanced Programme Effectiveness: Having coaches and mentors with lived experience boosts credibility and rapport. Young people see role models who have “walked in their shoes” and succeeded, which increases engagement. These staff can connect on a deeper level, understanding the challenges (from trauma to lower self-belief) that the participants face, and are living proof that positive change is possible. This likely contributes to the high retention and success rates.

•Economic & Social Empowerment: For the employees themselves, DRW is providing jobs and personal development. Many of these roles (coaches, youth workers) are not just jobs but vocations that allow individuals to give back to their communities. In social value terms, moving someone with a potential history of exclusion or unemployment into a fulfilling job has a high impact. We can conservatively gauge that each such employment is worth on the order of £10k–£15k in annual social value (combining the individual’s wage and well-being from working, plus reduced benefit dependency). For all 15 staff, that’s perhaps £150k–£200k of additional social value per year created by DRW’s hiring practices – value that would not appear in a standard ROI, but is very much aligned with DRW’s mission of transforming lives. And none of this is double counted in the participant-focused analysis; it’s a bonus category of impact.

The inclusion of lived-experience staff exemplifies DRW’s holistic approach. It blurs the line between “service provider” and “beneficiary” – some staff were likely past beneficiaries or from the same demographic that DRW aims to help. By empowering them as colleagues and leaders, DRW amplifies its cultural competency and community trust, leading to better outcomes for current participants. This strategy of employing program alumni or those with relevant life experience is increasingly recognised as best practice in youth work, because it reinforces a cycle of positive social capital.

4. Conclusion

Dallaglio RugbyWorks generates a multi-dimensional impact that is both financially compelling and socially transformative. On one hand, it offers a proven way to drastically reduce the costly fallout from school exclusion – putting young people on track to be productive, healthy adults instead of drawing deeply on public services. On the other hand, it improves lives in ways that cannot be fully captured by budgets: happier, healthier, more confident young people; stronger communities; and opportunities created not just for participants but also for those who guide them.

Programme Cost per Participant: £1,800

Total Social Value per Participant: £58,025

Combined ROI: ~£32.2 of social value generated for every £1 invested

By carefully aligning the quantitative ROI model with a qualitative & quantitative SROI analysis, we can confidently say:

•Effectiveness: DRW achieves one of the highest sustained EET rates documented for an excluded-youth intervention (86% vs 53% baseline), validating its core methodology of long-term, relational support through sport and mentoring. This directly tackles the NEET crisis and its associated harms.

•Fiscal Responsibility: At 23:1 ROI (conservative), DRW is a cost-effective solution for the taxpayer. It addresses multiple policy priorities – education, employment, health, crime – in one integrated programme, making it a highly leveraged investment for public or charitable funding.

•Social Transformation: DRW’s impact on mental health, well-being, and community inclusion adds depth to its value. Participants often describe the programme as “life-changing” – they not only gain skills and jobs, but a new outlook on life. This is borne out by survey shifts in optimism, self-worth, and relationships. Such transformations have long-term societal benefits (e.g. breaking cycles of trauma and exclusion), suggesting that the true social return may be even higher than what current models capture.

•Scalability with Integrity: The presence of 15 staff with lived experience exemplifies DRW’s commitment to “walking the talk.” Scaling DRW could therefore have a multiplier effect: not only reaching more young people, but also training and employing more mentors who have overcome similar challenges, thereby injecting positive role models into communities that need them. The ROI and SROI calculations per participant would likely hold or even improve with scale, provided the programme maintains its relational quality (as cautioned, fidelity is key).

•Strategic Alignment: From a strategic funder’s perspective, investing in DRW aligns with goals to prevent problems rather than just treat them. The savings identified (education, justice, etc.) accrue to multiple public agencies, which argues for collaborative funding models. Meanwhile, the additional social value speaks to corporate and philanthropic partners interested in community well-being, diversity, etc.

References

Gill K, Brown S, O Brien C, Graham J and Poku Amanfo E (2024). Who is Losing Learning? The case for reducing exclusions across mainstream schools. IPPR and The Difference.

Pro Bono Economics (2024). Costing work supporting IPPR and The Difference, as cited in Who is Losing Learning and related briefings.

Joseph A et al (2024). Early Adult Outcomes for Suspended and Excluded Pupils. Education Policy Institute, commissioned by Impetus.

Commission on Young Lives (2022). All Together Now: Inclusion not exclusion – supporting all young people to succeed in school and in life.

RSA (2020). Pinball Kids: Preventing school exclusions.

IPPR (2017). Making the Difference: Breaking the link between school exclusion and social exclusion.

Department for Education. Suspensions and Permanent Exclusions in England: 2023 to 2024.

HACT-WEMWBS-Report

Additional data sources include DfE exclusions statistics, LEO publications, Ministry of Justice costing reports and NHS unit cost publications UK Social Value Bank, HACT, Green Book.

ROI Component Assumptions Explained

1. Avoided Public Costs £42,075

•Based on a 33 percentage point uplift in sustained Education, Employment or Training (EET) outcomes for DRW participants compared to the national average for permanently excluded young people.

•Lifetime public cost of exclusion estimated at £170,000 per person (from IPPR/Pro Bono Economics).

•A 75% “retention discount” is applied to reflect the assumption that only three-quarters of the uplift is sustained over time.

•Programme cost per participant is £1,800.

•ROI = £42,075 ÷ £1,800 = 23.4×.

•This is a conservative estimate, excluding higher-end cost estimates (e.g. £350k–£370k) and additional attribution discounts.

2. Additional Social Value (Wellbeing) £14,000

•Derived from HACT’s Social Value Bank proxies for outcomes such as:

oRelief from depression or anxiety (£36,766/year if fully resolved).

oIncreased confidence, improved relationships, reduced isolation, and improved physical activity.

•Adjusted to avoid double counting with fiscal savings already captured in Component 1.

•Reflects wellbeing uplift measured through baseline and endpoint surveys (e.g. WEMWBS).

•Rounded to a conservative average of £14,000 per participant to reflect partial improvements across multiple domains.

•ROI = £14,000 ÷ £1,800 = 7.8×.

3. Lived-Experience Staff Employment £1,950

•DRW employs 15 staff with lived experience (e.g. former participants, those with barriers to employment).

•Each role is valued at ~£13,000/year in social value, based on HACT’s “unemployment to full-time employment” proxy (latest value: £14,433).

•Total value = 15 × £13,000 = £195,000.

•Value is distributed across 100 participants in the cohort: £195,000 ÷ 100 = £1,950 per participant.

•ROI = £1,950 ÷ £1,800 = 1.1×.

•Assumes staff roles are sustained for at least one year and that the employment is additional (i.e. would not have occurred without DRW). |

Summary

•The combined ROI of ~32.2:1 is built on conservative, evidence-based assumptions.

•Each component is distinct and additive, with care taken to avoid overlap or double counting.

•The approach aligns with HACT and SROI best practice, using Green Book-compliant wellbeing valuation methods.