I’m sitting here, reflecting on the Innovation Network’s “State of Evaluation 2012” report.
I encourage you to download it and read it for yourself; start with pages 14 and 15. These two pages display infographics that summarize what funders (also known as “grantors,” or if you’re Bob Penna, as “investors”) and nonprofits (also known as “grantees”) are reporting about why they do evaluation and what they are evaluating.
Regardless of whether you call it evaluation, impact assessment, outcomes management, performance measurement, or research – it’s really, really difficult to ascertain whether a mission-based organization is delivering the specific, positive, and sustainable change that it promises to its stakeholders. Many organizations do an excellent job at tracking outputs, but falter when it comes to managing outcomes. That’s in part because proving a causal relationship between what the nonprofit does and the specific goals that it promises to achieve is very costly in time, effort, expertise, and money.
But assuming that a mission-based organization is doing a rigorous evaluation, we still need to ask: what is done with the findings, once the analysis is complete?
What the aforementioned infographics from the “State of Evalution 2012” tell me is that both grantors and grantees typically say that the most important thing they can do with their outcome findings is to report them to their respective boards of directors. Considering the depth of the moral and legal responsibility that is vested in board members, this is a pretty decent priority. But it’s unclear to me what those boards actually do with the information. Do they use it to guide the policies and operations of their respective organizations? If so, does anything change for the better?
If you have an answer to the question of how boards use this information that is based on firsthand experience, then please feel to post a comment here.