Our Story

Our founders, William Wubbenhorst and Andrew Gluck have collectively spent over 30 years working in the nonprofit program evaluation world. They have written case studies and conducted traditional program evaluation research, while also developing Social Capital Valuations (SCV) unique approach through their innovative evROI (Expected Value Return On Investment) analysis. SCV’s approach is designed to deliver maximum value to practitioners and funders by speaking the language of program outcomes, and the value associated with those outcomes, rather than simply counting outputs. Most significantly, their evROI analysis allows SCV to monetize a program’s impact in comparison to that program’s cost. Our clients repeatedly tell us that we have helped them identify new strategic partners and opened up new revenue streams based on these evROI results.

SCV’s story began in 2009, while Gluck was attending a conference for National Fatherhood Initiative grantees in Denver, Colorado. The discussion arose on how to improve the grantees’ sustainability, with a federal program manager asking the question:

That was Mr. Gluck’s ah-ha moment and he made the decision that he and Mr. Wubbenhorst needed to prove this evaluator wrong. They went to work, creating a detailed logic model utilizing proximate indicators (such as divorce and self-reported marital distress) and found the probability of the associated subsequent positive outcomes (i.e., of fathering and/or a healthy marriage) and its impacts. National reports such as The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Child-Bearing by Benjamin Scafidi and The Annual Costs of Father Absence by Steve Nock and Christopher Einholf were used to find the cost of negative outcomes (such as public assistance and criminal justice system involvement) on a per household basis. Out of their determination, the evROI methodology was born, based on the comparison of monetized program outcomes against program costs.

For SCV, the overall goal of the evROI analysis is to incorporate a “bottom line” mentality into the management of public and non-profit programs that aim for better efficiency (achieving objectives at lower cost), and better effectiveness (achieving lasting results). Our long-term objective is to see funders begin to make funding determinations based on outcomes, rather than outputs. At the same time, SCV is equally concerned with the current state of so-called “evidence-based practices,” which require extensive and expensive program evaluations that many faith- and community-based organizations simply cannot afford. This leaves the false impression that the only programs meeting the evidence-based standard are those that can afford these expensive evaluations, leaving out program that are, in fact, effective, but cannot afford to prove it.