Organisation: The Government Outcomes Lab
Measurements are often assumed to be perfect windows into social outcomes, but are they? Join our engaging roundtable on social outcomes measurements, where we investigate this theme from multiple perspectives. In this session we explored questions such as:
We gained unique insights from policy makers, practitioners, and researchers as they share their diverse perspectives on measuring outcomes. We delved into the purpose and applicability of outcome research, and explore the frustrations and failures encountered, shedding light on the practical realities and tensions between research design and real-world behaviour. This was an interactive and engaging panel session that challenged conventional wisdom and provided fresh perspectives on measuring social outcomes.
We discussed measuring and monetising outcomes in deep dive 2.5. The session discussed the challenges in choosing the rights measurements. Dr Kathy Edgar, Dr Johannes Langer, and Charlie Grosset (Substance) shared valuable insights gained from calculating the Social Return on Investment (SROI) of the Chances SOC. They emphasised the need to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach, advocating for project-specific baselines and methodologies. Lindsey Poole, Paul Neave, and Madeleine Parkinson offered perspectives on measuring social welfare advice outcomes, emphasising the increasing complexity of welfare issues and the challenges in measuring and attributing outcomes. Jeffrey Matsu (CIPFA) and Neil Stanworth (ATQ) stressed the importance of fair funding allocation and mapping to longer-term outcomes, emphasising the value of education even if its returns take time to materialise. The session concluded with Mara Airoldi's call to action, advocating for standardised methods and transparent frameworks for monetisation to ensure comparability and drive value-based decision-making in different contexts.