Background
Measuring outcomes refers to collecting and reporting information that reflects changes in people’s lives. Such
measures can be individual (e.g. is a client better off as a result of a service provided); across a group of people
(e.g. are people with disabilities living in Barwon better off as a result of the NDIS); or across the whole
population (e.g. changes in the incidence of chronic mental illness).
Governments increasingly want to know whether their social spending improves people’s lives. Governments
are seeking to measure the benefits people or groups of people gain from particular funding programs.
Community service organisations want to confirm they are making a difference in the lives of the service users
and the communities they serve. Many are turning to tools such as Results Based Accountability and Social
Return on Investment to define and measure outcomes.
Opportunities for community service organisations
Measuring outcomes enables community service organisations to better understand the impacts of their
activities on their clients and communities. It can also allow community service organisations to focus on the real
difference they make in people’s lives, rather than on being accountable for delivering specified inputs and
outputs.
Measures that provide prompt feedback can enable organisations or funders to adapt quickly if outcomes begin
to deteriorate.
There is also potential for improving reporting processes to government funding bodies by reducing reporting on
inputs and outputs of service delivery; instead replacing this with reporting on outcomes.
Implications for community service organisations
The use of tools such as Results Based Accountability and Social Return on Investment do not necessarily
match the definitions and measures governments are seeking to use.
Clear definitions are needed and the measures agreed by all parties (including clients), before client outcomes
can be used for reporting and funding.
If client choice and control is used to select and deliver services then client outcomes will vary. It then becomes
difficult to aggregate the outcomes to measure the impacts of a government funding program.
Outcomes measures must be practical and offer feedback without involving a significant time lag.
The cost of measuring outcomes through direct service delivery could take away the benefits to clients or
consumers (e.g. information technology systems may need upgrading). Costs may be minimised by
organisations working collaboratively to develop systems of data collection and reporting.
Example: The Compass guide to social impact measuring
The Compass guide for social impact measurement developed b y the Centre for Social Impact is a practical
tool that explores and explains key topics, concepts, questions and principles of outcomes measurement.
The Compass unpacks the difference between outputs, outcomes and impacts.
It contains an overview to assist organisations to navigate commonly used methods or approaches to
assessing outcomes.
It provides examples of a range of methodologies for measurement, including the strengths and limitations of
each approach.
More information on The Compass: Your guide to social impact measuring.
Prepared by the Victorian Council of Social Service (VCOSS) in consultation with members of the
Ageing, Disability and Mental Health Collaborative Panel, which comprises the Australian Federation of Disability Organisatio ns
(AFDO), Carer’s Victoria, Council on the Ageing (COTA) Victoria, Ethnic Communities’ Council of Victoria (ECCV), National
Disability Services (NDS), Psychiatric Disability Services of Victoria (VICSERV) and VCOSS.