Fully integrated model

Most impact assessment happens once, at the end. The fully integrated model does it all the way through.

Here assessment is not a separate exercise bolted on later. The workbook calls it an integral part of a programme, carried out on a regular basis and not at the end.

The design point is timing. Environmental, economic and social indicators are captured at similar points in time, through set procedures and arrangements. That does two things.

It cuts inconsistencies in the data. And it lets the organisation see the interdependencies between different impact indicators, which a one-off snapshot hides.

Who uses it? Mainly social venture capital firms and impact investors. They need to track how their money is doing while the work is still going on. They also need to know their social enterprises will last.

Two named tools grew out of this model. Acumen Fund built the BACO Ratio. The Robin Hood Foundation built its Benefit-Cost Ratio.

The definition (Chapter 7, section 7.2.3). Integrated Social Impact Assessment is an integral part of a programme, where impact assessment is carried out on a regular basis and not at the end. Procedural and organisational arrangements covering environmental, economic and social indicators are built in, so data is captured at similar points in time. That reduces inconsistencies in the data and ensures interdependencies among the varied impact indicators are captured. The model is usually used by social venture capital firms and impact investors to track regular progress on their investments in social enterprises and to ensure those enterprises are sustainable.

Advantages and disadvantages (Table 7.2). This table is examined directly, so learn both columns:

Its two worked examples. Acumen Fund designed the BACO Ratio — Best Available Charitable Option — to decide on social enterprise investments, judging viability on financial leverage, technological leverage and social impact. The Robin Hood Foundation, a New York non-profit granting to organisations in jobs and economic security, education, early childhood and youth, and survival, built its Benefit-Cost Ratio to capture the collective benefit to poor individuals created per dollar of cost to the foundation, translating diverse programmes into a single monetised value.

Where it sits among the four models (7.2). The workbook sets out four organisational models for structuring evaluation:

No figure attached. Section 7.2.3 gives no cost, no frequency in months and no threshold for this model. The figures nearby belong to its two tools, not to the model, so there is nothing numerical to memorise about the model itself beyond the five advantages and three disadvantages of Table 7.2.

Illustrative fund and figures.

Navodaya Social Ventures invests in early-stage social enterprises. It holds ₹40,00,00,000 across 9 investees and runs the fully integrated model rather than commissioning an annual study.

What "built in" looks like. Every investee reports the same panel on the same day each quarter — the last working day of March, June, September and December:

One investee, four quarters. Saral Sanitation Pvt Ltd, a ₹4,50,00,000 investment building toilet blocks in Bhagalpur:

What continuous capture shows that a year-end study would not. Q3's cost per block jumps 23% and construction halves. Navodaya sees it in October, finds a cement supply failure behind it, and fixes the procurement before Q4 — which then comes in at the lowest cost of the year. A study commissioned in April would have averaged the four quarters to ₹1,02,000 a block and reported a reasonable year.

And the interdependency. Water drawn per block rises quarter on quarter alongside usage. Because the economic, social and environmental panels are captured at the same points in time, that link is visible. Usage is the success measure and groundwater draw is the cost of it, and the two move together.

The cost side of Table 7.2. This system is not free. Navodaya employs 2 full-time impact analysts at ₹18,00,000 a year between them and spent ₹22,00,000 building the reporting platform. That is exactly the disadvantage the workbook names — it needs financial resources and expert people, and a smaller fund could not carry it.

Chapter 7 (Social Impact Assessment Reporting, 11% weightage), section 7.2.3, defines the fully integrated model, names its two worked examples and sets out Table 7.2's advantages and disadvantages.

Chapter 7's first sample question comes straight from that table: "Pertaining to the advantages of the Integrated Social Impact Assessment, which of the following are NOT true" — the answer is the option that is in fact a disadvantage ("requires expert human resource to develop, operate and generate impact reports"). That single question makes Table 7.2 the highest-yield block in this section. Expect also a question asking which model an organisation is using when it assesses continuously rather than at the end, and who typically uses it (social venture capital firms and impact investors).

• Table 7.2's columns are the trap. Needing expert human resource and needing financial and technical resources are disadvantages. Benchmarks, comparable data, any-time assessment and a standard report format are advantages. Chapter 7's own sample question is built on mixing them up.
• "Regular basis and not at the end" is the defining phrase. If a question describes assessment done after completion, that is not this model.
• It is used mainly by social venture capital firms and impact investors, not by every social enterprise. Building it needs money and expertise most small NPOs do not have.
• Four models, and they are distinct. Outsourcing hands the work to an external agency; partnership pairs research and policy teams; DIY builds custom tools in-house; fully integrated builds continuous assessment into the programme itself.
• DIY is "similar in benefits and drawbacks", not identical. The workbook links the two but keeps them as separate models.
• BACO and the Benefit-Cost Ratio are tools used within this model, not models in their own right. BACO is Acumen Fund's; the Benefit-Cost Ratio is the Robin Hood Foundation's. Do not attribute either to the wrong body.
• Inflexibility is a real risk. The workbook warns that a rigid integrated system makes it hard to add new tools or indicators later — the price of a standard format.