Who We Help
Governments spend billions on programmes designed to improve lives - housing, health, infrastructure, employment, education, community development. The question is rarely whether the money was spent. The question is whether it worked, for whom, and whether it represents good use of public resources.
SVT produces person-level social value evidence for government programmes and public investments. Not averages standing in for people. Not self-reported satisfaction surveys taken in isolation. The evidence shows who benefited, how the change happened, and how results compare with what would likely have happened without the programme. We are careful and honest about who gains and who does not - so public money can follow the programmes that genuinely help.
Public programmes operate under increasing pressure to demonstrate results. Traditional evaluation methods often produce:
The result: cabinet submissions quote numbers that cannot be defended under challenge. Treasury boards approve spending without evidence showing which groups were affected differently. Programmes continue or are cut based on political salience rather than measured outcomes.
We evaluate whether a programme achieved its intended social outcomes - measured at the person level. Did the intervention improve welfare for the people it reached? By how much? Through what channels? Compared to what would have happened without it?
Traditional cost-benefit captures market effects. SVT measures the social value - health, security, connection, satisfaction, and hundreds of other topics - across the affected population, set against the cost of the intervention. No double-counting. No reconciliation gap.
Who benefited most? Which populations saw the largest gains? Where were the effects concentrated geographically, demographically, or temporally? Distributional evidence supports equity-informed policy decisions that aggregate totals obscure.
Every SVT evaluation compares the programme with what would likely have happened to these same people without it. That comparison case is built by the model itself through ONEMODEL - not assumed from a simple comparison group.
Before committing resources, model the expected social value of proposed interventions. Compare scenarios. Identify which populations are most likely to benefit. Allocate based on projected evidence, not precedent alone.
| Policy Domain | What SVT Measures |
|---|---|
| Housing | Social value of affordable housing, tenure security, and rental subsidies for occupants and communities |
| Health | Wellbeing impact of health interventions beyond clinical outcomes - quality of life, caregiver burden, labour-force effects |
| Infrastructure | Social return on public infrastructure investment - transport, community facilities, regeneration |
| Employment | Welfare effects of employment programmes, training, and labour-market interventions |
| Education | Long-term social value of education investments measured through life-course modelling |
| Community development | Person-level impact of community programmes - arts, sport, social connection, food security |
CIHR-funded health research is expected to create about $98.2 billion in social value for Canadians over 20 years - part of $171 billion in total expected value, a $5.30 return for every $1 invested.
Source: Expected Economic and Social Impact of CIHR, CANCEA, 2026.
Surety bonding protects up to $9.36 in social value - people's wellbeing - for every $1 of premium on public infrastructure, alongside the jobs it safeguards.
Source: Surety Bonding in Canada, CANCEA, 2025.
Congestion in the GTHA was estimated to cost residents about $34.6 billion in lost wellbeing in 2024 - 77% of the region's total congestion cost. Source: Impact of Congestion in the GTHA and Ontario, CANCEA, 2024.
Funds flow to programmes that look effective on outputs but do not change lives - while genuinely effective programmes lose support.
Business cases rest on market effects alone, understating or overstating true social value and leaving decisions open to challenge.
When the public or the auditor asks who actually benefited, you have attendance counts, not evidence.
We assess the programme or investment, identify evaluation questions, and review data availability.
We define the people, the programme, the "what would have happened anyway" case, and what is counted.
ONEMODEL estimates how each person's wellbeing changes over time, compared with what would likely have happened without the programme.
Decision-grade evidence report: headline social value, distributions, channels, sensitivity, limitations.
For the people it actually reaches. Schedule a consultation.
Start a Conversation