Rethinking ‘Efficiency’ in Social Services through Outcomes rather than Output
In the social services and nonprofit world, efficiency is a tricky concept. In business, efficiency often means doing more with less, streamlining workflows, cutting costs, and hitting targets quickly. But human service work isn’t widget manufacturing. It’s about people: building trust with a homeless individual, supporting a family through a crisis, walking alongside someone healing from trauma. These relational, human-centered activities can defy standard efficiency metrics. What does it mean to be “efficient” when success might be a teenager learning to trust an adult again, or a community feeling empowered rather than alienated? It’s time to rethink efficiency in our sector, valuing impact, well-being, and sustainability over speed or quantity. In this post, we’ll explore the tension between administrative efficiency and relational work, how well-intentioned efficiency goals can backfire, and how we might redefine efficiency to better serve communities and those on the front lines of Canada’s social services.
The Human Side of Social Services: Relationships at the Core
At the heart of social services is the relationship. Frontline workers, whether social workers, counselors, outreach staff, or community navigators, know that a genuine human connection is often the key to positive change.
Why are relationships so powerful? Because challenges like homelessness, domestic violence, mental illness, or poverty are inherently human problems. People often seek help amid trauma or crisis. A trauma-informed approach emphasizes creating emotional and physical safety, choice, and collaboration – none of which can be achieved without time and trust. Frontline practitioners need to uncover what’s really going on beneath the surface of a person’s situation, and that requires patience, empathy, and consistency. Indigenous communities have long emphasized that relationships are central to well-being and healing; an Indigenous approach to social programs prioritizes listening, understanding local context, and allowing space for people’s stories rather than imposing external benchmarks. In other words, effective help is often person-paced, not clock-paced.
Crucially, building trust and rapport doesn’t follow a set schedule. A youth coming to a drop-in center may not open up by the end of an intake appointment; it might take weeks of casual conversations before they ask for the help they truly need. A survivor of abuse might require multiple meetings just to feel safe enough to share their experience. This “slow work” is, in fact, real work – it lays the groundwork for future “outcomes” like finding housing, getting a job, or reuniting a family.
So, any honest conversation about efficiency in human services must start by recognizing that relational work is the heart of the work. Efficiency cannot mean rushing or skipping the relationship-building process – if it does, we risk losing the very thing that makes social services effective.
The Traditional Efficiency Mindset vs. Relational Work
Despite the importance of human connection, social service organizations are often under immense pressure to demonstrate administrative efficiency. Governments and funders (both public and philanthropic) understandably want accountability: they set targets, require measurable outputs, and expect services to reach as many people as possible within finite budgets. Agencies feel compelled to “do more with less”, streamline every process, and document every hour of staff time. The result is a well-intentioned focus on numbers – how many clients served, how many sessions delivered, how quickly cases are closed, how low the cost per client is, etc.
These metrics and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are not inherently bad. Keeping unit costs down or increasing service reach can be positive. The problem is what gets lost when efficiency is defined narrowly as throughput and cost-cutting. Social workers and nonprofit staff often find themselves juggling heavy caseloads and paperwork, leaving little room for meaningful engagement. A national study by the Canadian Association of Social Workers (CASW) found that 72% of child welfare social workers felt they could not spend sufficient time with clients because their caseloads were too large. Think about that: in a field where relationship is key, nearly three-quarters of workers couldn’t give clients the time they knew was needed. The same study found unmanageable workloads to be a critical issue for 75% of workers, and almost half of those who left the field did so due to burnout or secondary trauma.
Frontline staff often feel tension between their clients' needs and the demands of their funders or managers. On the one hand, they want to be present, patient, and person-centered; on the other, they’re expected to meet targets, complete lengthy reports, or adhere to standardized program models that may not fit each client. A worker in a shelter might be torn between the directive to “move clients through” quickly (to free up beds) and their knowledge that a few extra days of stability would help a particular client find suitable housing. A mental health counselor might be evaluated on how many appointments they book, even if some sessions get canceled because clients in crisis have unpredictable availability. Over time, these pressures can push practitioners to prioritize box-ticking over relationship-building, even when they know it’s counterproductive.
Moreover, traditional efficiency metrics often reflect a short-term horizon. Funders might require outcomes within a one-year grant period or quarterly progress reports with quantitative targets. But meaningful social change doesn’t always fit neatly into a fiscal year. Human change is often nonlinear – progress can be two steps forward, one step back. A participant may drop out of a program and return months later, now ready to succeed. An outreach initiative might take a long time to show results as community trust builds gradually. These nuances are hard to capture in “numbers served this quarter.” Stakeholders might want to see neat charts of immediate impact, but those charts can obscure the true picture. In fact, an overemphasis on certain metrics can create “goal displacement” – a phenomenon where organizations focus on hitting numeric targets at the expense of their deeper mission. For example, an employment program could chase the metric of “number of job placements in 30 days” by pushing clients into any available low-wage job, rather than investing time to help each client find a sustainable, long-term position. The report looks efficient, but six months later, many of those clients might be unemployed again – a classic case of short-term efficiency undermining long-term efficacy.
Funders, too, can inadvertently send the wrong signals. Yes, nobody wants funds wasted, but a low overhead ratio can also mean a nonprofit isn’t investing in staff training, supervision, or data systems – things that actually improve programs. Another pitfall is the push to report outputs rather than outcomes: when grantees feel compelled to maximize output numbers, this serves no one and can erode sector-wide integrity. The irony is that a program could meet 100% of its short-term targets on paper and still fail to create meaningful change on the ground, especially if those targets were never truly aligned with what communities define as success.
In Canada, we also have to recognize how a one-size-fits-all efficiency model can clash with cultural and regional realities. For instance, Indigenous service providers have long argued that Western metrics imposed by funders often misalign with community values and needs. A standardized reporting framework might label a program inefficient if it serves fewer clients per month, even if those clients (perhaps in a remote Indigenous community) are receiving deeper, more holistic support. Indigenous approaches to evaluation tend to emphasize story, context, and holistic outcomes – making space for the complexities of transformation rather than a linear tick-box of outputs. This perspective challenges mainstream notions of efficiency: sometimes quality and cultural relevance matter more than quantity. Similarly, rural and northern communities in Canada face unique challenges. A “streamlined” service model that works in downtown Toronto might not be efficient at all in Nunavut or a northern Saskatchewan town where travel time and relationship-building in close-knit communities are factors. Over-standardization in the name of efficiency can actually reduce effectiveness in such cases.
In summary, the traditional efficiency mindset – focused on speed, cost, and countable outputs – often stands at odds with the relational nature of human services. This tension leaves frontline workers juggling the needs of the people they serve and the metrics of the systems that employ them. When administrative efficiency is allowed to trump human connection, the fallout can be significant.
When Well-Intentioned Efficiency Goals Backfire
The pursuit of efficiency, if done without a human lens, can not only fall flat but also cause harm. One major consequence is staff burnout. Human services work is emotionally taxing to begin with; add relentless pressure to meet targets, complete paperwork, and handle high caseloads, and you have a recipe for exhaustion. Burnout is more than just being tired – it’s a state of emotional depletion, cynicism, and reduced effectiveness that builds up over time. Unfortunately, burnout has become widespread in our sector. A 2024 “State of Nonprofits” report found a staggering 95% of nonprofit leaders were concerned about staff burnout, and nearly half said they were struggling to fill vacancies as a result. In Canada’s child welfare system – which many call a system in crisis – burnout-driven turnover has created a “turnstile effect” where workers leave faster than new ones can fully integrate, especially hurting rural and northern areas. Every time a worker burns out and quits, clients lose a trusted relationship and organizations lose valuable expertise. The cost is enormous in human terms – and it’s not trivial financially either. What seemed “efficient” on a spreadsheet (e.g. saving money by understaffing or pushing workers to cover more cases) quickly looks like a false economy when you’re constantly recruiting and orienting new staff – and clients are falling through the cracks during transitions.
Now consider the impact on clients when efficiency is misapplied. People seeking help from social services are often vulnerable or marginalized; they may already feel like a “number” in other systems. If they encounter a service environment that feels rushed, impersonal, or overly bureaucratic, it can reinforce their alienation. For example, a newcomer to Canada fleeing violence might reach out to a nonprofit for support. If the intake process is swift but cold – a checklist of questions, a form, and then “we’ll get back to you” – the person might shut down and not return, feeling like they weren’t really heard. A youth struggling with mental health might have the courage to attend a counseling session, but if the counselor is pressed to fill required assessment forms for half the session, the young person may not come back for a second appointment. Well-intentioned efficiency measures (such as standardized intake forms or strict time allotments) can inadvertently signal to clients that their unique story is not important. In the worst cases, clients can feel re-traumatized when services treat them like tasks to be managed.
Another side effect of chasing numerical targets is the risk of short-termism in interventions. Programs might go for the “quick win” with clients to hit a goal, rather than what’s truly in the client’s long-term best interest. Imagine a homelessness outreach team with a target to place X individuals into housing this month. One approach is to place anyone you can into any available room or shelter bed as fast as possible – which might tick the box, but if those placements are unstable or not aligned with client needs, many will exit and be back on the street. A more relational approach might be slower: perhaps helping someone reconnect with family or wait for the right supportive housing match, which might happen next month instead. Traditional metrics won’t capture the value of that patience. If staff are incentivized only on this month’s placements, they might knowingly put someone in a suboptimal situation just to meet the quota, undermining trust and wasting effort when it falls apart. In essence, rigid KPIs can create perverse incentives. Likewise, telling a shelter to maximize bed turnover might increase “numbers served,” while more people cycle back into crisis because the deeper issues weren’t addressed.
In short, efficiency without empathy backfires. It results in burned-out staff, disillusioned workers, alienated clients, and often a cycle of crises and chronic needs that could have been prevented with a more patient, person-centered approach. The social services sector in Canada (and beyond) is grappling with this: we see the signs in workforce turnover, in clients who disengage, and in persistent social issues that don’t budge despite programs meeting their targets. It’s clear that our definition of efficiency must change if we are to truly fulfill our missions.
Redefining Efficiency: Impact, Engagement, and Sustainability
If the traditional notion of efficiency is flawed for human services, what’s the alternative? We need to reframe efficiency to uphold the relational nature of our work and advance long-term outcomes. An emerging vision of “efficient” human services is one in which impact is measured in lasting change, engaging effectively with people is valued as much as (or more than) throughput, and a healthy, supported workforce is recognized as foundational to any results. In other words, efficient should mean resourced, relational, and results-driven. Let’s break down what this could look like:
Focus on Long-Term Outcomes Over Short-Term Outputs: True efficiency in social impact is about solving problems, not just temporarily managing them. This means emphasizing outcomes (the real changes in people’s lives) rather than sheer outputs (activities completed). It can require a longer time horizon and patience. We must resist the urge to declare success too early or set arbitrary deadlines for complex social issues. For example, an “efficient” youth mentorship program shouldn’t be the one that simply matches the most kids with mentors in 30 days, but the one that, over 5 years, can show those kids have higher graduation rates or well-being. In practice, refocusing on outcomes may involve working with funders to allow multi-year funding and flexible program goals. It may mean tracking progress in more meaningful ways, such as improvements in a client’s stability or confidence, even if those don’t lend themselves to immediate numeric scores. Efficiency, redefined, asks: Did we create lasting impact per dollar spent? Rather than, did we complete the checklist fastest?
Meaningful Engagement and Quality of Service: A reimagined efficiency puts quality of engagement front and center. This implies valuing things that are harder to quantify, like trust-building, client satisfaction, and collaborative problem-solving. We should ask what “doing it right” looks like, not just doing it fast. Is it more efficient to quickly provide a generic service that a client might not stick with, or to spend extra time tailoring support so that the client truly benefits (and doesn’t need to come back)? Clearly, the latter is better for long-term results, even if it’s “slower” in the moment. In other words, by engaging people with what they actually need (a home and ongoing support), the system becomes more efficient where it really counts: fewer emergency room visits, fewer nights in shelters, fewer police interventions. The lesson is that effectiveness is efficiency in the human services context. Services that meet people where they’re at – that are flexible and person-centered – often achieve better outcomes, which is the whole point. We should therefore broaden our metrics of success. Some organizations are starting to track “relational metrics” such as client trust levels, continuity of care, and community empowerment. These indicators might be qualitative (stories, feedback) or measured using tools such as well-being surveys. They may not fit neatly into a spreadsheet, but they capture the human side of impact. In an efficiency reframe, a counseling program that maintains a high retention rate of clients (meaning clients continue coming because they feel safe and helped) would be seen as efficient, even if each case stays open longer, because it’s keeping people engaged long enough to reach their goals. Engagement is not a soft extra – it’s integral to outcomes.
Sustainable Staffing and Supportive Workplaces: Perhaps most radically, we must include staff well-being in our definition of efficiency. An organization that churns through employees and volunteers is not efficient in any meaningful sense. Thus, efficient human service organizations invest in their teams through reasonable workloads, adequate training, mental health supports, and yes, enough staffing and funding for administration. A sustainable workload means staff have the bandwidth to be present and do thorough, careful work with clients. It means they can take a sick day or a vacation without everything falling apart (or feeling guilty). This is not a luxury; it directly affects service quality and consistency. Studies confirm that burnout and turnover directly undermine program delivery and organizational memory. Conversely, agencies that take care of their staff see better client outcomes. Supporting staff well-being can range from small practices to structural changes (such as hiring extra relief staff during peak times or adjusting funder agreements to allow more than 10% for admin costs). Forward-thinking funders are stepping up: for example, some grant programs now explicitly fund staff wellness activities or provide multi-year, unrestricted funding so nonprofits can raise salaries and reduce burnout. This is a recognition that a resilient, motivated workforce multiplies impact. In a reframed efficiency, keeping experienced staff is a win, not trimming “overhead” at all costs. After all, every time a well-trained social worker stays instead of burning out, dozens of clients benefit from that continuity and expertise.
In practical terms, moving to this new concept of efficiency means we’ll make different decisions. We’ll design programs that allow for flexible service delivery (recognizing that humans don’t all follow the same script to success). We’ll budget to fully fund the true costs of quality service, including sufficient staff, training, and technology. We’ll also likely collaborate more – an efficient system is one where organizations work together to address complex issues, rather than each chasing its own narrow targets. For instance, if internal programs or multiple agencies share data and coordinate (with client consent) to ensure a family gets holistic support, that family may achieve stability faster than if they had to navigate siloed services. Collaborative, integrated approaches can reduce duplicative effort and prevent clients from falling through gaps – clearly a gain in efficiency from the client’s perspective.
Crucially, culture change is needed to sustain this redefined efficiency. It might mean rewarding a caseworker who prevented a crisis through persistent engagement just as much as one who processed many cases quickly. It certainly means re-examining how we use technology: instead of tech that imposes more checkboxes, we need tech that frees up time (e.g. by reducing duplicate data entry, simplifying reporting – tools that give workers time back for human connection). In short, efficiency must encompass doing the right things, not just the fast things.
Rethinking Metrics and Supporting Real Work
Achieving a more human and impactful notion of efficiency will require action from everyone in the sector – from frontline practitioners to executive directors, from government funders to private donors. Here’s how different stakeholders can help make the shift:
Leadership and Executives: Agency leaders set the tone. Executive Directors and managers, you can audit what you’re currently measuring and reporting. Do those metrics truly reflect your mission and the quality of work? If not, start changing them. Advocate to your board and funders for permission to include qualitative success stories and longer-term indicators in evaluations.
Funders and Government: Funders, whether government departments or philanthropic foundations, play a huge role in redefining efficiency. You influence what organizations focus on by what you ask for. So, ask for what really matters. This could include requiring (or at least encouraging) grant applications to discuss outcomes and learning rather than just outputs. Be open to proposals that build in capacity-building, staff training, implementing technology, or community engagement – even if those things look like “overhead.” In fact, consider providing general operating support or longer-term funding agreements. Funders can also explicitly fund quality improvements: for example, investing in a modern case management system that reduces admin burden (freeing staff time for clients), or funding a pilot of a trauma-informed approach and allowing flexible metrics during that period. These practices acknowledge that a well-supported organization will deliver better outcomes.
Frontline Workers and Managers: If you’re on the front lines or supervising direct service staff, know that you are the champions of this new practice of efficiency. Embrace the legitimacy of relational work as “real work.” Document and share the outcomes of your human-centered approaches. For instance, if spending two extra weeks engaging a client means they successfully complete the program, tell that story to your team and higher-ups. Use data where you can – maybe the client is now stably housed for 12 months, whereas our old fast-track approach saw many drop out at 3 months. By providing those narratives and numbers, you arm leadership with evidence to defend flexible approaches. Advocate from where you are. Often, managers can pilot small changes within their teams, such as a more trauma-informed intake form or an outcome-tracking system that captures milestones more effectively. If it works, share it upwards.
Ultimately, this is a collective effort. Sector associations and advocacy groups can also help by developing better metrics and tools – for example, frameworks for measuring community well-being or long-term social return on investment. Academics and evaluators can continue researching the links between staff well-being, relational approaches, and outcomes, giving us solid evidence to bank on. Clients and communities, too, should be part of the conversation: when given the opportunity, they will often emphasize the importance of things like respect, continuity, and trust in services – all of which align with our redefined efficiency. By including client feedback in performance measurement, we ensure we’re accountable to those we serve, not just to spreadsheets.
Moving Towards an Outcome-Driven Sector
Envision a human services sector – in Canada and beyond – where “efficient” means something very different from today’s common usage.
In this vision, paperwork and processes are pared down to the bare minimum so that human-to-human work can flourish. Technology and data serve as allies – providing insights and saving time. Collaboration will replace competition because the focus will be on solving problems holistically, not on which agency can claim the most outputs. Crucially, the people we serve will feel the difference. They will encounter services that feel welcoming and patient. They won’t be afraid to ask for help early (preventing crises) because they sense that the system is there to support them. Trust between communities and services will grow, unlocking cooperation that, in turn, breeds efficiency – when people trust, they engage more, and outcomes improve.
The payoff will be profound. An ecosystem where efficiency is measured in lives changed for the better, in communities strengthened, and in a workforce that can sustain its passion and skill. With funders, leaders, and frontline workers all rethinking what we prioritize, we can build a human services sector that is truly efficient in the service of humanity – driven by real outcomes and lasting social impact.
