Strictly speaking, money does not exist. It is a social construct, used to compare and exchange goods and services, to retain value, and if needed to shift wealth value over time (Greco, 2001). This construct is, of course, extremely helpful in facilitating economic interaction. In ancient times, when one product was bartered for another, if one party did not need what the other was offering then there could be no exchange. As precious metals began to serve as common denominators, it became possible to set shared values on various commodities and thereby to accommodate diverse modes of transaction. Because money is a social construct of our economic life, we ascribe different meanings to it within different contexts and periods (see, e.g., Zelizer, 1997). One such meaning is the value of items or services. In the modern age, the private sector easily accommodates this common economic denominator as a criterion for valuation. The fields that rely on ‘‘soft’’ technologies, however, find it difficult to assess their value to society in monetary terms. How can one measure in dollars the value of family reunification or decreasing marital tension? While for-profit organizations can quantify their success according to increase in profits, social services cannot show their contribution in such simple terms. This inability to put a concrete value on the contribution of social service organizations can be detrimental. In an era of scarce resources, politicians and policy analysts search constantly for places to cut public allocations. Like all producers of public goods, social workers and directors of social services rarely can and generally should not be expected to sell their services and goods or to attempt to finance their work through fee-for-service. While there are some few examples of fee-for-service social services, they rarely yield enough money to sustain the programs. Most social services would not survive without foundation support (including United Way) and/or government grants. These services therefore compete over depleting public and private sources. In this process, they are called upon to prove their value and contribution to society. Social work and social services often justify their value to society by recording and reporting what they do. These reports often sound something like: ‘‘We met this many hours face-to-face with clients with severe mental illness’’ or ‘‘We spent this many hours brokering services for these clients.’’ This type of process/throughput reports show that resources were properly used, but they do not account for impact/ outcome. However, when asked to report on outcomes and the value of these outcomes, social service organizations often falter. It is widely accepted that social services and social work contribute to the quality of life of people in their community. From ex-drug users now gainfully employed and raising families to communities that managed to organize and get rid of health hazards in their immediate environment, numerous qualitative testimonies attest to the positive transformation for which social service organizations are responsible. The problem with these many direct outcomes and other positive externalities is that they are presented in qualitative terms and do not give a comprehensive picture of total contribution. For too long, social work and social services have struggled to find ways to quantify their numerous accomplishments. As such, social work failed to claim its unique contribution to society as it was not indicated in dollar terms. Indeed, measuring outcomes and social impact is challenging. It can take years—or even generations—to see the real impact of a social capital investment. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to isolate the effect of one program from that of other services and to establish true causality (i.e., whether an intervention directly causes an outcome, is merely one contributing factor among many, or is not related at all). For example, the effect of preschool attendance on high school graduation rates cannot be measured until a dozen years later and even then with little precision. Many other factors—including the student’s academic experience