June 12, 2007
How to Measure Nonprofit Effectiveness
Several philanthropy blogs have been carrying on a vigorous debate
over how best to measure whether nonprofit groups are successful.
The debate started after a venture capitalist commented at the recent NetSquared technology conference, “Some nonprofits just suck.”
Some people thought the comment was just a statement of fact, arguing that some groups do perform poorly—and deserve to be shut down. But others thought it was inappropriate to phrase the problem that way, especially at a conference attended by nonprofit workers.
Since then, the conversation has veered in several directions, as described by Sean Stannard-Stockton, author of Tactical Philanthropy.
The bloggers have been discussing whether a nonprofit group is more “sustainable” if it earns income as opposed to relying on donations, and whether grant makers and charities should weed out underperformers by giving money or offering subsidized services only to nonprofit groups that are effective.
Tactical Philanthropy offers links to the blogs and comments that have been discussing the issue.
What do you think is the best way to measure a group’s effectiveness, and what should be done about underperformers?
Share your thoughts by clicking on the comments link below this posting.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Want Control? Start a Business, Not a Nonprofit Group
Next: Can Charities Under Promise, but Over Deliver?
There was a lively thread on CharityChannel’s CHARITYTALK list several years ago on the topic of “Does a charity have a ‘right’ to exist?”
I agree emphatically that some charities do, indeed “suck,” to use the vulgar. No one should be surprised by this, as charities are no different from anything else in terms of their range of quality. Some are exemplary, most are adequate to good, and some others are inadequate to awful.
The proper measure of quality is a balance between efficiency and effectiveness in meeting their mission. Unfortunately, there are precious few ways to measure effectiveness, so most “watchdogs” focus on efficiency, mainly expressed in terms of budget analysis.
The market in imperfect at addressing underperformers (however one defines that term), but it is still superior to the alternatives most commonly discussed.
— Michael L. Wyland Jun 12, 01:16 PM #
I’ve often been asked to tell people who the best tutor/mentor programs in Chicago are, based on the information I’ve been collecting for many years.
I always respond, “tell me what zip code you’re interested in” and I’ll tell you if there are any tutor/mentor programs in that zip code and let you decide if they are good or not.
If there are more than one charity providing the same service in the same area, the donor should be able to shop and choose which one they want to support.
Based on my information, there are very few neighborhoods with too many good programs, and there are too many neighborhoods with no programs at all.
My point is that if there is a need for a service in a neighborhood and the only organizationg trying to deliver that service is not as good as other organizations in different areas, we should be trying to help that organization improve what they do because the service is needed in that area. If we punish the agency by withdrawing financial support we’re only hurting the youth in that area who need the support of well organized programs.
I think that until we find ways to create knowledge maps showing where charity services are needed, and which charities provide needed services in what areas, the conversation about how good they are is moot.
The reality is that good tutor/mentor providers are needed in every high poverty inner city neighborhood and that they won’t get good unless “those who can help”, begin to get proactive in how they use their resources to help good organizations grow from start-up, to good, to great.
I suspect this same thinking could be applied to many other charitable sectors.
— Dan Bassill Jun 14, 01:21 PM #