Pugh (2009) states concisely that the "main purpose of the Every Child Matters reforms is to improve outcomes for children, not to integrate services" (in Forbes and Watson, p.48). Pugh offers an important reminder that partnership working is not an end in itself, but is aimed at improving outcomes for children, young people and their families. However, in a review of literature for the Scottish Executive in 2006, Brown and White note that "the majority of studies focus on the process of integrated working rather than the outcomes achieved" (Brown and White, p.10). This is a view which echoes Dowling and colleagues who concluded that much more evaluation has been undertaken of the process of partnership working rather than the impact on service users.
A fundamental question for a partnership therefore is "the extent to which it has added value and achieved a greater impact than would have been achieved without its existence" (Atkinson and Maxwell, 2007, p.20). There is however a general consensus that determining the outcome of a partnership is not always straightforward. Diamond (2006) states that work on the effectiveness of partnerships "is effectively focused upon the process" (Diamond, p.282). Nevertheless, outcomes should be considered from the start of the partnership and need to be meaningful rather than based on what information is available (Atkinson and Maxwell, 2007). Douglas (2009) emphasises the importance of establishing a baseline.
Myers and Barnes (2005) describe types of evaluation which are sued in the context of Sure Start programmes. They include formative, process, output and outcome evaluations. In that context, outcome evaluations "ask questions about what ahs changed as a result of the programme and its activities" (Myers and Barnes, p.4). In an education context, the view is taken that outcomes for children and young people may be more straightforward since there are national benchmarks against which to measure progress (Douglas, 2009).
Being clear about the benefits for children, young people and their families is not the only reason for focusing on outcomes. Buckmaster (1999) identifies the value for the organisations involved. She argues that outcome measurement can be used effectively as a tool for learning. Although pressure to measure outcomes arise from accountability, "the primary need to do so should be to effect learning capability" (Buckmaster, p.195). Once partners have negotiated intended outcomes, then valid and reliable information on the outcomes can help to inform decisions about whether the partnership is meeting its goals.
Above all the focus on outcomes helps partners to maintain the needs of the child, young person and their family at the centre. Focusing on outcomes constantly takes partners back to the question of collaborative advantage and asking what difference we are making together for this child, young person or their family? Alternative approaches to evaluation risk becoming programme focused and losing sight of the child or young person's needs.