How to measure social outcomes

Work with offenders on a helpful new framework

The latest publication in the probation inspectorate’s “Academic Insights” series will be particularly valuable for people working in the voluntary and community sector with children and  young people in contact with the criminal justice system who need to demonstrate their impact to funders and commissioners. Academic Insights are aimed at everyone in the justice sector with an interest in the evidence base. HMI Probation commission leading academics to present their views on specific topics, assisting with informed debate and aiding understanding of what helps and what hinders probation and youth offending services.

Written by Claire Paterson-Young, a Senior Researcher at the Institute for Social Innovation and Impact, the publication introduces the ‘Young Person Centred, Theory-led Social Impact Framework’. The framework maps a theory of change and relevant outputs, outcomes and impacts in the context of:

  • Maslow’s hierarchy of needs,
  • Integrated Cognitive Antisocial Potential (ICAP) theory, and
  • Desistance theory.

This multi-theoretical lens requires attention to be given to measurement in areas such as health and wellbeing, relationships, education, independence, and pro-social attitudes. The core principle of this approach is that children are placed at the heart of the outcome-focused service design, empowering them to overcome past experiences and to move towards positive and fulfilling lives.

Ms Paterson-Young highlights the fact that children and young people in conflict with the law are often disempowered within the youth justice system. She sets out to establish the role of social impact measurement in empowering children and young people by placing them at the heart of outcome-focused service design. The report sets out the concept of social impact measurement for practitioners, outlining the role that this form of measurement plays in mapping the outputs, outcomes, and impact for children in conflict with the law.

A five-stage process

The framework describes a road map for effective and robust evaluation of the outcomes of services supporting children and young people. To implement the framework requires researchers and practitioners to understand a five stage pathway towards measurement:

  1. Identify objectives: What are the objectives of the impact measurement (for the organisations and partners)?
  2. Identify stakeholders: Who are the beneficiaries and who provide resources?
  3. Relevant measurement: Understand the theory of change and then utilise relevant indicators to capture this.
  4. Measure, validate, and value: Assess whether outcomes are achieved and whether they are recognised by the various stakeholders.
  5. Report, learn and improve: Ensure the dissemination and meaningful use of the data gathered and findings produced to internal and external stakeholders/audiences.

This model of social impact measurement emphasises engagement with a holistic range of stakeholders including young people and their families and peers and a wide range of specialist and generic services across the social justice domain.

As stated above, the measurement takes into account three key theories. Firstly, Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (well known to everyone who has ever studied psychology) sets out the different levels of need we all have from basic food and shelter to key psychological needs to our need for self-fulfilment.

Secondly, ICAP theory identifies three main impact areas for youth offending: (i) economic factors, such as low income/unemployment; (ii) relational factors, such as delinquent families/peers and living in high-crime neighbourhoods; and (iii) psychological factors/impacts, such as family breakdown/poor parenting, and internal functions such as high anxiety.

Finally, desistance theory highlights how changes in behaviour can be influenced by ageing, life events, social bonds and personal narrative, impacting on the individual’s sense of self.

The combination of these theories leads to the importance of measurement in areas such as health and wellbeing, relationships, education, independence, and pro-social attitudes.

Conclusion

This model of social impact measurement allows organisations to identify an individual’s journey of support through the identification of short-, medium-, and long-term benefits. The report emphasises that this approach not only helps to identify the benefits for individuals but also any shortcomings in service delivery, driving organisational change when it is required.