| Course | MT314 Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Impact measurement plan |
| Length | About 850 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT314 Unit 8
About $2.19 for Every Dollar, After the Deductions: An MT314 Unit 8 Impact Measurement Plan for a Car Repair Venture
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT314: Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Unit 8 Impact Measurement Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The venture, comparison group and all figures are composite; the methods and sources cited are real.
Outputs and Outcomes
Outputs, kept in a separate column so they cannot pass as evidence of change: referrals received, diagnoses completed, repairs completed, average days from referral to repair.
Outcomes, the changes the theory of change predicts: shifts attended, jobs kept, repeat breakdowns avoided, title loan use reduced.
Ebrahim and Rangan (2014) argue that organizations should measure outcomes only where their causal logic is clear and their control reasonable. This plan measures outcomes up to job retention at 180 days, where the theory's logic and the shop's influence are strongest, and treats earnings stability as a longer-term signal.
Nine Indicators
1. Job retention at 90 days. Source: employer records. Collected: 90 days after repair. Owner: navigator.
2. Job retention at 180 days. Source: employer records. Owner: navigator.
3. Missed shifts, eight weeks before and after repair. Source: employer attendance records, with consent. Owner: navigator.
4. Repeat breakdowns within six months. Source: shop records and follow-up call. Owner: service writer.
5. Title loan use. Source: intake and six-month surveys. Owner: navigator. Definition adapted from IRIS+ metrics on client financial health (Global Impact Investing Network, n.d.).
6. Days from referral to running car. Output. Owner: service writer.
7. Repairs completed. Output. Owner: service writer.
8. Worker share of repair cost paid. Output. Owner: service writer.
9. Worker satisfaction. Source: six-month survey. Owner: navigator.
Where IRIS+, the Global Impact Investing Network's catalog of impact metrics, has a matching definition, the plan adopts it so results can be compared with other ventures.
The Comparison Group
Each month, subsidized repair slots fill up, and workers referred after that point wait until the next month. Those workers come from the same employers, with the same kinds of breakdowns, and differ mainly in timing. They form the comparison group. Workers repaired in the pilot kept their jobs at 180 days at a rate of 77.5 percent; the waiting-list group kept theirs at about 52 percent.
A retention rate of 77.5 percent means nothing until it is set beside the 52 percent of similar workers who waited.
SROI Worksheet
Nicholls et al. (2012) set out the method for social return on investment: identify outcomes, value them, then deduct what would have happened anyway (deadweight), the share caused by others (attribution) and the decline over time (drop-off), and discount future value.
Investment, year one: $213,000, covering subsidies, the navigator and grant-funded costs for 160 subsidized repairs.
Outcome 1: Jobs kept. 160 workers × 25.5 percentage points above the comparison group = about 41 additional workers employed at 180 days. Value: about $9,000 each in earnings retained over a year, net of benefits replacement. Deadweight already removed by the comparison group. Attribution to the repair: 60 percent, since employers, workers and other supports also matter. Year-one value: about $220,000.
Outcome 2: Employer replacement costs avoided. 41 workers × $4,700. Attribution: 60 percent. Value: about $115,000.
Outcome 3: Title loan fees avoided. 160 workers × 30 percent fewer taking loans × about $900 in fees. Deadweight: 20 percent. Attribution: 70 percent. Value: about $24,000.
Year two. Outcome 1 continues at 50 percent drop-off, discounted at 3.5 percent: about $106,000.
Total present value: about $466,000. Ratio: $466,000 / $213,000 = about 2.19.
Sensitivity
Attribution at 40 percent: ratio about 1.50.
Attribution at 80 percent: ratio about 2.88.
Comparison group retention at 60 percent instead of 52: ratio about 1.54.
The ratio stays above 1.0 under each change, but its size depends heavily on attribution, the least certain assumption.
Why These Deductions Matter
Without deductions, the same outcomes would produce a ratio above five. Such a figure would be easy to publish and hard to defend. Deadweight is handled through the comparison group, so the plan does not count jobs that would have been kept anyway. Attribution recognizes that a repaired car is one reason among several that a worker stays employed: a supportive supervisor, a stable childcare arrangement or a raise may matter as much. Drop-off recognizes that the benefit of a repair fades as the car ages and other problems arise. Each deduction lowers the ratio, and each makes it more credible to a funder who has seen inflated social return figures before.
Data Collection in Practice
The navigator collects employer records at 90 and 180 days, with each worker's written consent at intake. Employers who refer workers agree to share retention and attendance data for referred workers only. Surveys are short, five questions, and are completed by phone. Workers in the comparison group receive a $25 gift card for completing the six-month survey, since they have not yet received a repair and have less reason to answer.
Reporting
Results are reported every six months to funders and the board, with outputs and outcomes in separate tables and the sensitivity range beside any ratio.
References
Ebrahim, A., & Rangan, V. K. (2014). What impact? A framework for measuring the scale and scope of social performance. California Management Review, 56(3), 118-141. https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2014.56.3.118
Global Impact Investing Network. (n.d.). IRIS+ system. Retrieved October 1, 2026, from https://iris.thegiin.org/
Nicholls, J., Lawlor, E., Neitzert, E., & Goodspeed, T. (2012). A guide to social return on investment (2nd ed.). The SROI Network.
What the MT314 Unit 8 assignment asks for
In Unit 8 students design a plan to measure their venture's impact. The plan should separate outputs, what the venture delivers, from outcomes, the changes it produces. Indicators should each have a definition, a data source, a collection point and an owner. Instructors expect a comparison group or other way of estimating what would have happened without the venture. Many prompts ask for a social return on investment calculation or similar valuation, with deductions for deadweight, attribution and drop-off. Sensitivity to key assumptions should be shown. The plan should explain how data will be collected in practice, including consent, and how results will be reported. Using recognized metric definitions makes results comparable with other ventures and easier for funders to check.
How the MT 314 Unit 8 example is put together
The sample's first section lists outputs and outcomes separately and explains, with Ebrahim and Rangan, why measurement stops at retention at 180 days. Nine indicators follow with source, timing and owner. The comparison group is described, under the highlighted line that a retention rate means nothing until set beside the workers who waited. The worksheet values three outcomes with stated deductions, adds a discounted second year and divides by a $213,000 investment, following Nicholls and colleagues. Sensitivity shows the ratio under three changed assumptions. A section explains why the deductions matter, another describes consent and survey practice and a reporting schedule closes the plan.
Where the points sit in the MT314 Unit 8 rubric
Impact plans are usually judged on the separation of outputs from outcomes, the quality of indicators, the strength of the comparison and the honesty of valuation. Graders reward indicators with clear definitions and owners. A comparison group, even an imperfect one, is far stronger than before-and-after figures alone. SROI calculations should show every deduction and its basis. Sensitivity analysis shows which assumptions drive the result. Data collection should be practical and ethical. Methods sources appear in APA 7. Plans that report a single impressive ratio without deductions or sensitivity, or that count services delivered as impact, miss the unit's demand to measure change rather than activity. Reporting outputs and outcomes in separate tables also earns credit.
Common MT314 Unit 8 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Impact plans often count activities, such as people served or repairs completed, and call them impact. Another common weakness is the lack of any comparison, so the plan cannot show what would have happened anyway. Some students calculate an SROI ratio without deductions, producing a figure no funder would trust. Sensitivity is rarely shown. Before drafting, ask what would happen to the people you serve if your venture did not exist, and find a group that resembles them but has not yet been served. That group is the start of your comparison, and its outcomes become the baseline every claim is measured against.
Get an MT314 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
The theory of change from Unit 4, your venture's projected numbers and the measurement rubric are the inputs here. The plan returns within 24-48h with outcomes separated from outputs, a comparison strategy, defined indicators and, if the assignment calls for it, a worked SROI with deductions and sensitivity shown. No fee is charged for the first custom sample, which runs on your own figures. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT314 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT314 Unit 1: Social Venture Discussion Post
- MT314 Unit 2: Greyston Bakery Venture Analysis
- MT314 Unit 3: Social Problem Definition Brief
- MT314 Unit 4: Social Venture Theory of Change
- MT314 Unit 5: Social Venture Business Model Summary
- MT314 Unit 6: PlayPumps Seminar Reflection
- MT314 Unit 7: Social Venture Funding Strategy Memo
- MT314 Unit 9: Pitch Presentation
- MT314 Unit 10: Venture Proposal
- MT313 Unit 8: Supplier Responsibility Memo
- MT304 Unit 8: Leadership Ethics Case Analysis
- MT302 Unit 8: Job Satisfaction and Performance Study
- MT300 Unit 8: Business Analytics Report
MT314 Unit 8 questions, answered
Is an SROI calculation required?
Only when the prompt calls for one; plenty of MT314 plans ask for indicators and a comparison strategy without monetizing anything. The example includes an SROI because it shows how deductions change the answer. If you include one, the deductions matter more than the ratio, and the sample shows every step so each figure can be traced back to its input.
Where do financial proxies come from?
From published data wherever possible: wage statistics for earnings, employer or industry estimates for replacement costs, regulators' or researchers' figures for loan charges. The example marks its proxies as composite. For your venture, the sample cites a source for each proxy or states the assumption plainly, since an unsourced proxy is the easiest place to challenge a ratio.
What is IRIS+ and do I have to use it?
IRIS+ is the Global Impact Investing Network's free catalog of standardized impact metrics, widely used by impact investors. Using its definitions makes a venture's figures comparable with others. Most MT314 prompts do not require it; the example cites it where a definition fits, and your plan can follow whichever measurement framework your course names instead.
Where can I find a free MT314 Unit 8 sample paper?
The complete MT314 Unit 8 impact measurement plan is on this page, estimating social return for a car repair venture.
Where does the comparison group come from in the MT314 Unit 8 sample?
Workers at the same employers who were referred after each month's subsidized repair slots had filled and so waited for a repair.