Soft outcomes are anything but

When I talk about ‘outcomes’  I mean the difference you make for the people you support. ‘Hard’ outcomes can be clearly defined and quantified. ‘Soft’ outcomes are hard to measure directly; they are qualitative and often intangible.


Most funders and investors want some sort of clear measure to know what difference their money could or has made. It is generally easier to provide evidence of the hard outcomes: tangible differences such as the numbers of people securing a job, the amount of benefit income gained, numbers housed, qualifications earned.


In order to achieve a hard outcome, a lot of other things have to happen – for example, changes in self belief, confidence, understanding, attitude or motivation. These are commonly described as ‘soft’ but that term is a disservice as it makes them sound fluffy and easy. Instead it takes a lot of expertise and time to build trust with someone on the margin and support them to make and sustain these changes. Think of the work involved in changing the attitude of a young offender.


The value of soft outcomes needs to be recognised as being just as important as hard outcomes. Especially as sometimes they are the only changes there will be. For example, the self worth gained from volunteering when there is no realistic prospect of getting a job. One way to add weight to soft outcomes is to use one of the many tools out there e.g. Rickter Scale, or the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. These help to translate self-assessed or observed change into numbers, allowing you to measure and evidence changes such as improved self esteem.


And perhaps we should all stop calling them ‘soft’ outcomes when they definitely are not. You really would not call it soft when a charity’s support means a woman affected by domestic abuse feels safer, would you?


https://twitter.com/emmabeeston01