Another benefit of outcomesbased approaches is that they rely on feedback from consumers to assess what impact services and other initiatives are actually having. Therefore, they encourage service providers and funders to put clients at the centre of service planning and evaluation. However, the 2010 TasCOSS report found that: “Outcomes accountability is hard to implement. If done poorly, a systemic move to an outcomes-based accountability framework can add to red tape and bureaucracy without actually contributing to client and community outcomes.” Outcomes for community services are hard to measure and it is challenging to develop appropriate performance indicators because they are influenced by multiple programs, organisations and other factors, and develop over a long period. “Outcomes measurement and accountability must firstly be practical and meaningful for community service organisations. It must help them to improve their own services. This is a key factor enabling funded services to produce reliable data...” (TasCOSS 2010, p.15) TasCOSS recognises that moving towards the measurement of outcomes to drive planning and performance will be a long process and a challenging one. The three-year project we are embarking on will only begin the journey. The TasCOSS project will include two interconnected and complementary streams. The first stream will build gener-
ic knowledge and skills across CSOs and largely focus on outcomes of individual services. It will include seminars, training, web-based resources and facilitated networking between organisations.
TasCOSS News August 2013
assess efficiency by measuring the level and quality of activity undertaken.
It will include an exploration of the various approaches to outcomes measurement, such as Social Return on Investment, Program Logic, the Outcomes Star, or Mark Friedman’s Results Based Accountability. The emphasis will be on understanding common principles underlying all of these approaches, so whatever organisations choose is used wisely. The second stream is more ambitious, and will focus on building a coalition of partners to address broad population outcomes that cannot be achieved by individual services. This stream will build on the growing national and international interest in collaborative strategies, where a cross-sectoral coalition of agencies and organisations work in a coordinated way toward a common social goal, using common outcome measures to monitor their progress and drive and motivate action. International studies of initiatives that successfully tackled complex social problems have identified common elements and the term “collective impact” has been coined to refer to such strategies. A small but growing community of practice is emerging (Hanleybrown, Kania and Kramer 20123). For more information, or to join the Tasmanian chapter of the Social Impact Measurement Network Australia, contact Tim Tabart at tim@tascoss.org.au or 6231 0755
Measuring inputs and outputs is simple, measuring outcomes more complex.
At a time when state and federal funding is tightening ... the need to put resources into interventions that work is critical
Tim Tabart TasCOSS Sector Development Unit
1 ARACY (Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth) (2009) Measuring the outcomes of community organisations. ARACY, Canberra. Downloaded from: www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/111/filename/Measuring_the_outcomes_of_ community_organisations.pdf 2 TasCOSS (2010) Making a difference – towards an outcomes, performance and accountability framework for Tasmanian community services. www.tascoss.org.au/Portals/0/IDU/Outcomes-TasCOSS%20Interim%20Report-12Feb10.pdf 3
Hanleybrown, Kania & Kramer (2012) Channelling Change: Making Collective Impact Work Stanford Social Innovation Review http://www. oregon.gov/gov/docs/OEIB/keynoteChange.pdf
7