Tag Archives: Outcomes

A Nonprofit’s D.I.Y. Strategic Planning Process Blooms


[Sixth in a series: When a strategic plan is not a strategic plan, really; kicking the tires of the current strategy; an approach to strategy for nonprofits; now we’re getting somewhere; and the hard spade work of strategic planning.]

[Author’s note: While “Philanthrophile” — a.k.a. Betsy Stone — has been offline here for six months during the last stages of her father’s remarkable 96-year life, she has been busily blogging about aging, gratitude, father-daughter relationships, end-of-life, hospice, siblings, memory, faith, love and loss at The Henry Chronicles.]

Last night, a hard-working and engaged nonprofit Board concluded 18 months of work by formally approving a five-year strategic direction. Woo hoo!

I called it a “D.I.Y.” strategic planning process because this small nonprofit (~$1 million budget), like most nonprofits, didn’t have the luxury of hiring a fancy shmancy consulting firm to figure out how it might best focus its strengths and resources to have the greatest impact on the community, and differentiate itself in the process. Instead, it used a methodical approach that relied mostly on volunteer resources to analyze the situation and investigate options, as well as four mini-retreats where Board members came to a common understanding. The process took about a year, although due to two sudden family health emergencies, the formal approval of the draft plan was pushed out to last night.

This sixth post about the nonprofit strategic planning process outlines what’s happened since the staff investigated the potential strategic directions identified by the Board in May 2012, and shares the Board discussion process that culminated in unanimous approval.

Up to this point, three potential strategic directions were in play, identified by the Board in May 2012. To formulate a recommendation, exploratory work was needed – work that couldn’t be done during the course of a meeting or a retreat. The work that ensued over the summer months investigated:

  • Changing need within the nonprofit’s sector. This included reviewing a lot of secondary research into underlying causes and the size and growth of the need addressed by the nonprofit.
  • The “competitive” landscape. We collected information from the community’s 2-1-1 service and met with several key nonprofits who provide related services in the community. Our goal was to understand how need is being met by other nonprofits and government agencies recognizing that they may be potential allies in addressing needs. As a small nonprofit, our intent was to identify a niche where a community or group was not adequately served by other nonprofits.
  • Best practices. We conducted discussions with well-regarded local nonprofits about how they monitor and evaluate outcomes, and analyzed best practices of similar nonprofits in other communities by combing through public documents and websites.
  • Impact measurement. All nonprofits are being pushed to demonstrate that their approach has a positive impact and this nonprofit’s entire sector is struggling with how to measure results. We were able to meet with a nationally-regarded academician about outcomes measurements related to self-reliance.
  • What those in need want. We created and fielded a client survey, met with government agencies and community services knowledgeable about community need, and conducted focus groups with potential clients.

Any situation assessment also requires understanding how well a nonprofit is performing now. This nonprofit was fortunate to have a partner with substantial operating expertise step up to evaluate its operational capacity. Without that partnership, we would have had to do our own capability assessment. After looking at a variety of self-evaluation tools, I turned up this excellent Capacity Assessment created by McKinsey and available through Venture Philanthropy Partners, a “dot.org” that is driving much of the national conversation about impact and evaluation. (I previously shared a case study about how a nonprofit stopped doing what didn’t work and began to concentrate its efforts on a program with tremendous impact, which I discovered through VPP’s book, Leap of Reason.)

One last, important piece of the equation needed to be in place before choosing the strategic direction: establishment of financial targets. Too often, strategic planning processes consist of nonprofit Boards brainstorming new programmatic objectives without addressing the financial requirements to sustain the mission.

Targets establish performance-related goals to be achieved by the end of a period and are used to inform budgeting and guide the strategic plan. The inherent tension between current financial performance and desired performance helps to drive changes that encourage the stability and success of the organization. This nonprofit’s targets were developed in discussion with the executive director, external accounting firm (which specializes in nonprofits), and chair of the finance committee after considering what financial measures are important to a high-performing nonprofit and/or a high-performing organization of this type, as well as the organization’s current state of evolution and development.

By September, highlights of the investigation were rolled into a briefing that was reviewed with the executive director. The executive director felt that the findings – and her own experience on the front lines of the nonprofit – unambiguously pointed to one direction.

The waters were tested when the executive director presented her recommendation to the Executive Committee of the Board. She concluded by asking, “Are there things we haven’t considered? How do we make sure we have the right kind of discussion with the Board?”

With the full support of the Executive Committee, the Board was brought together for a retreat to hear and discuss the recommendation, using the following agenda:

Welcome and introductions – Board chair

What’s in a strategic plan? What’s the Board’s role?

Where we are in the strategic planning process

What we’ve learned – highlights of the situation assessment

Environmental update, and findings from the capability assessment

Recommended strategic priorities

Board discussion of pro’s, concerns and risks to consider

Determination of next steps

  • Implications for budget
  • What are the next deliverables for review by the Board?
  • Check-in points: how should the Board monitor progress? Through a committee? At Board meetings?

As indicated in the author’s note at the top of this post, “life intervened” when I had to suddenly leave the retreat, although the outcome was as hoped: the strategic direction was approved.

Last night’s retreat was an opportunity to confirm and polish the strategic plan. A draft Strategic Plan document was circulated in advance to the board, with the following table of contents:

  • Recognition of Board participating in development
  • Introduction
  • Mission statement
  • External situation factors (social, economic, giving/grants, government/political, technology, competition/other providers)
  • Internal situation factors (capacity, operations, financial stability, facilities and operating hours, programs, management, Board, strategic partnerships, quality, donor base, volunteers, corporate sponsorships and relationships)
  • What are we trying to do and how will we get there? (summary of strategic direction)
  • Goals and objectives (including financial targets)
  • What will have to change to accomplish our goals (“from”/”to” table)
  • What will stay the same?
  • What are the expected outcomes when we get there?
  • What are the risks and how can we mitigate them? (risks/possible mitigations table)
  • Acknowledgements

During last night’s mini-retreat, the group expanded the discussion of changes that would be required to achieve the plan as well as potential risks and mitigation strategies. Goals, objectives and outcomes were approved, and the Strategic Plan in its totality was enthusiastically and unanimously approved.

Are we finished? Hardly! Now the hard work of implementation begins as well as the development of new tools to monitor progress toward the strategic plan and the factors most critical to its success.

Comments Off on A Nonprofit’s D.I.Y. Strategic Planning Process Blooms

Filed under Uncategorized

What happened when a nonprofit focused on what really works

Roca Inc.’s intervention model from a participant timeline perspective

Over the past year, I’ve written over six posts about the slo-mo strategic planning process that I’ve been engaged in on behalf of a small nonprofit. Influencing part of my thinking has been the work of Venture Philanthropy Partners, which published Leap of Reason earlier this year.

The Leap-of-Reason folks just shared a very thoughtful research paper written by Roca about their work on outcomes. Roca, based in Massachusetts, serves young people “that most people give up on.” Starting with creation of their first Theory of Change model in 2005 (they finished their third in 2011), they’ve been steadily improving their approaches to help high-risk kids.

What struck me is their eventual decision to give up a “multi-service youth development model” for “a single service intervention model designed to intentionally move a targeted group of very high risk young people to outcomes.”

The depth of work, research and resources that organizational leaders have put into honing their approach is beyond that of small nonprofits.

But this is not: the courage to try to document their Theory of Change and be willing to focus on the things that do the most good.

More often, I see nonprofits expanding the services they provide in an attempt to address root causes, when they may have little more than a hope that these interventions make a difference. Or worse, when they think the services will attract grant dollars. Experimentation is good, but broadening for its own sake does a disservice to the organization’s mission and clientele.

Comments Off on What happened when a nonprofit focused on what really works

Filed under Strategy

Hot topic: should nonprofits scale for greater impact?

My very dog-eared copy of the book I review here

[Sixth in a series related to strategic planning]

A critical place to start any strategic planning process is a good self-assessment of an organization’s capabilities. Woven throughout many of the self assessment tools out there (I mentioned two good ones in the last post, and the Nonprofit Resource Center has posted another bevy) are two implicit notions: 1) bigger is better when it comes to impact, and 2) nonprofits  must develop enterprise funds as a way to stabilize their revenues.

I’m not sure either of those two premises are true for all nonprofits, but nonprofits interested in scaling and/or enterprise funds should check out “Scaling Your Social Venture: Becoming an Impact Entrepreneur,” by Paul N. Bloom, adjunct professor of social entrepreneurship and marketing with the Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship (CASE) at Duke University (Palgrave Macmillan 2012).

Scaling, Dr. Bloom reminds us, is defined as “achieving more efficient and effective adoption of your innovation.” Scaling is hot, hot, hot in the funders’ community, and in a not-unrelated trend, hot in the nonprofit community. Why? “These folks want to change the world,” Dr. Bloom says in his preface, “not just run a sustainable and effective do-gooder organization.”

Even a nonprofit that intends to stay focused on a local community, however, can learn from this book. He offers four assessment tools:

1) A self assessment of scaling success with scale (1 through 7) responses to questions including “…we are satisfied with how much we have alleviated the problem,” and, “…we are in better shape than anyone else to have an impact on the problem.

2) A self assessment of the theory of change. I agree with Dr. Bloom that organizations must “think deeply about the actions or initiatives you are trying to implement and the effects, outcomes and impacts that you want to achieve as a result of what you are doing.” His assessment tool in chapter 10 can help organizations pinpoint the lever that organizations are most reliant on to create change. For example, if an organization depends on labor-intensive interventions to provide the program services, then you’d better have staffing and management figured out, which he says includes: inspiring leadership; managers with planning and supervision skills; board members who contribute monetarily and/or with know-how; productive recruiting and training programs; employees or volunteers capable of delivering high quality services or solutions to problems; and roles and responsibilities for employees and volunteers that are understood and function well.

3) A self-assessment of starting resources — my personal favorite — that includes such scale statements as “…we have people in place who possess the skills necessary to run our programs,” and, “…we are not just scraping by financially.”

4) And finally, a self-assessment of organizational capabilities.

Scaling may be generating a lot of buzz, but as Dr. Bloom suggests, it isn’t easy. Considering his structured approach, clearly described in the book, is a good place to start. For an overview of his SCALERS model, check out this description on the Harvard Family Research Project. Then buy the book for great case studies and how-to tips.

Comments Off on Hot topic: should nonprofits scale for greater impact?

Filed under Strategy, Uncategorized

The Hard Spade Work of Strategic Planning

[Fifth in a series.]

In May, I reported that the strategic planning process I was facilitating for a small local nonprofit was right on track. After engaging the Board in identifying three possible directions, following a discussion of the environment and potential outcomes, the time came to dig in.

As Patrick Bell, who teaches the Non Profit Resource Center’s “Board Leadership: The Essentials” workshop tells Board members, a Board should provide input for long-range goals and the strategic plan and forge a strong partnership with staff in leading the organization.

That “strong partnership” has to respect the fact that the nonprofit’s leader is the one in day-to-day contact with clients and constituents. Staff should be in the best position to understand the operational challenges of potential directions. And, of course, they are going to be the ones held accountable for achieving the desired results.

This summer, I’ve been helping the staff of a small nonprofit explore three potential directions. By the end of August, we hope to be in a position to cue up the options so that the executive director can choose the best course, and prepare to recommend a five-year strategy.

Here’s a peek at the streams of work that have been underway:

  • Deep diving into outcomes: According to some studies, organizations that commit to outcomes* and evaluate them actually perform better than organizations with a looser sense of impact. Most nonprofits (especially those that operate in the sector that this one does) do not have true outcome goals. They measure output (for example, clients served), but not outcome. The “deep dive” has included interviewing several well-run local nonprofits, investigating the literature about outcomes related to this sector, meeting with a top national academician on the topic, surveying 20 nonprofits in the same sector in similar-sized communities, and collecting feedback from existing clients. The survey of 20 nonprofits (based on public sources) turned up a fourth direction that is now being considered.
  • Investigating targets: Successful for profit companies recognize that they have to be as good as competitors, or their lunch will be eaten. Nonprofits compete, too. They compete to be deserving of funders’ and donors’ confidence. They would benefit from knowing how their “competitive set” is performing with respect to indicators like administrative efficiency and contribution to overhead (total revenues minus total expenses, divided by total revenues). My hope is that this nonprofit will not only land on a couple of indicators that will help them to assess how they are doing, but set specific targets for where they need to be as part of the metrics related to strategic plan progress. A nonprofit, for example, can’t break even. It must be “profitable” enough to fund basics like IT infrastructure (increasingly expensive and critical) and program development. An emerging (but still debated) measure for nonprofits is the amount of funds contributed by social enterprise; McKinsey’s capability model (see link in next paragraph) assumes that nonprofits should develop sources of revenue beyond grants and donations. The survey of 20 organizations revealed a net “profit” ranging from -10% to over 10%, so it’s going to be interesting to figure out the right target for this organization! (One approach would be to decide which organization they most want to be like “when they grow up.”)
  • Assessing capability: We identified several helpful tools to help the organization assess its strength across every aspect of its management, from the Board through operations through communications and fundraising. Here are a couple of resources worth checking out: McKinsey’s tool adapted from its extensive work in the commercial sector, and United Way of Minneapolis’ tool posted on managementhelp.org.
  • Qualitative research into the possible directions: We’ve been out talking to nonprofits serving related clients as well as holding focus groups with people facing the kinds of problems that we hope to alleviate. There is no substitute for going straight to the horses’ mouths, and there have been some surprising insights that have come from this work.

Along the way, our understanding of the external environment has greatly expanded, insights that we’re weaving into the partially completed strategic plan document. When we’re done, the executive director should be in a position to put in front of the Board a well-researched recommendation and plan that answers the questions:

  • Where are we now?
  • What are we trying to do?
  • What will have to change?
  • How will we get there?
  • What do we expect to happen when we get there?
  • What are the risks and how can we mitigate them?

McKinsey, in a recent article entitled “How Strategists Lead,” did a great job of describing what we’re trying to build: “A great strategy, in short, is not a dream or a lofty idea, but rather the bridge between the economics of a market, the ideas at the core of a business, and action. To be sound, that bridge must rest on a foundation of clarity and realism, and it also needs a real operating sensibility.”

* Outcomes are defined as, “Socially meaningful changes for those served by a program, generally defined in terms of expected changes in knowledge, skills, attitudes, behavior, condition, or status. These changes should be measured, be monitored as part of an organization’s work, link directly to the efforts of the program, and serve as the basis for accountability.” — adapted from the Glossary of Terms of the Shaping Outcomes Initiative of the Institute of Museum and Library Services, Indiana University and Purdue University Indianapolis; The Nonprofit outcomes Toolbox: A Complete Guide to Program Effectiveness, Performance Measurement, and Results by Robert Penna; and the Framework for Managing Programme Performance Information of the South African government. As published in “Leap of Reason: Managing to Outcomes in an Era of Scarcity, Venture Philanthropy Partners

1 Comment

Filed under Strategy, Uncategorized

Now we’re getting somewhere – a nonprofit strategic planning process


photo credit: alexabbound under CC license via flickr

[Fourth in a series. Read more about what’s wrong with most nonprofit’s strategic plans, how to evaluate the current strategy, and see an agenda to kick off a strategic planning process.]

This post might as easily be titled, “How to avoid the syndrome ‘we’re lost but making good time*.'”

The strategic planning process that I’m facilitating for a local Sacramento nonprofit is getting really exciting as its reaches the half-way point.

Having decided in October that it wanted to establish a direction and measurable outcomes goal to guide its efforts for the next five years, the Board set aside an evening in February to brainstorm. Before jumping into idea creation, the group received a refresher course on changes in the internal and external environment from the executive director. A substantive discussion followed about potential audiences or groups that the agency might choose to focus upon. But perhaps the most interesting discussion was about potential outcomes.

Small nonprofits usually think — and report — output, not outcomes. How many clients have they served? How many sites were they in? Organizations rarely have the resources to collect or analyze data about long-term impact such as whether a problem was prevented or fixed. And as a result, they usually don’t think in those terms, even if their mission statements are visionary and ambitious.

The discussion of outcomes set the table for a very productive brainstorming session about potential directions the agency could adopt. As members offered ideas, they were asked to suggest a specific target and provide an example measure of success. Their ideas filled the better part of two flip chart pads.

By the end of the three-hour meeting, 10 draft goal statements had been formulated. Participants used the time-honored sticky dot method of voting to identify ideas worth exploring. Three goals emerged with a preponderance of dots.

Board members were then invited to volunteer to join one of three subgroups that would develop a draft goal into a proposal for the full Board to consider at its next mini-retreat. Using a common template, the groups met to discuss:

  • The target audience: Is the description specific enough?
  • Outcomes: What meaningful changes would we aim to achieve (1-3 measures)?
  • Need:  What objective information is available about the need and the trend in that need?
  • Service gap: Is there a gap in addressing this need?
  • Before-and-after: How would the organization change if it adopted this goal? What likely programs would be developed, changed (or even eliminated)?
  • Assets: What capabilities or allies do we have that could help the organization achieve the goal?
  • Models: Are we aware of successful models in other communities we might emulate?
The three proposals were presented at a mini-retreat earlier this month. It was not expected that one would emerge as the clear choice. And that was the case! However, it did result in two goal ideas going to the next step of development. More information will be collected to help inform the Board as it chooses its five-year directions.
Observations to date
  • Nonprofits typically don’t have real long-term strategic plans in part because they don’t have staff or consultants to develop them. A good strategic plan takes a ton of work.
  • The step-wise process we’ve used so far has made it possible to engage the brain power of the Board and to let them do the initial tilling of the field. New Board members have become connected and engaged faster than they would have by attending monthly meetings, while the wisdom of longer-term Board members has been tapped.
  • The challenge now will be for the group to identify what information will help them to take a step back and be good governors and risk-managers for the organization. They will have to distance themselves from the ideas they have helped to bring to the table.
  • It’s time for staff – with a little third-party help from me – to put effort into developing both ideas. As we move closer to a draft direction, the executive director should have a stronger leadership role. The executive director knows the most about the capacity of the organization, the resources of the community, and the appetite of funders.
Stay tuned!

*’We’re lost but making good time’ is taken from Venture Philanthropy’s Leap of Reason Managing to Outcomes in an Era of Scarcity, featuring essays by top nonprofit management consultants, nonprofit leaders and philanthropists.

1 Comment

Filed under Strategy, Uncategorized

Consider community report cards to add urgency to your message (when they’re good)

At lunch last week, a local community activist/former non-profit leader brought “dessert”:  two locally produced report cards that aim to create a vision for community wellbeing, and to document progress toward specific, quantifiable goals.  The 2008 Children’s Report Card, a project of the Sacramento County Children’s Coalition, attempts to create a cohesive and meaningful picture of the status of children using hundreds of publicly available data points.  The Sacramento County Report Card for 2007-08, on the other hand, draws upon a far narrower set of data and seems more focused on demonstrating improvement or progress, even if the data are not be particularly meaningful when it comes to showing the state of such priority areas as transportation and public health and safety.  How important is the % of pothold service requests handled within 72 hours as a measure of public satisfaction with transportation services?

As non-profits try to bring attention to the need for funding or attention, well-researched documents like the Children’s Report Card contain useful information that could easily be incorporated into backgrounders or fact sheets.  For example, the report includes information about self-sufficiency – the income level at which a family can be sustained without relying on income supports or public assistance.   Self-sufficiency is another way of painting a picture of what it means to be working but unable to meet basic needs such as housing, food, child care, health care and transportation.

As it becomes more imperative to keep website content fresh, keep in mind report cards produced by local coalitions and governments as a potential source of credible information.  But apply your critical eye; if the data doesn’t move you, it won’t be compelling to donors or the media, either.

And by the way, the Sacramento Children’s Report Card does not appear to be available via website – which seems odd — but the report lists this contact:  sfung@communitycouncil.org.

Comments Off on Consider community report cards to add urgency to your message (when they’re good)

Filed under Messaging, public relations

Cause for alarm? The California A.G.’s “naughty list” of commercial fundraisers

Over the weekend, I received two intriguing emails from William Ishmael, the president elect of the Sacramento Tree Foundation Board member who has been busy inviting friends to contribute to the “re-greening” of Sacramento through the planting of 5 million trees by 2025.

In the first email, he asked what I made of the recent report released by California Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office, which found that only 43.6% of donations raised by commercial fundraising companies made it to the charities for which the money was raised.  In the second email, he had just caught the January 2nd KQED Forum interview of Dan Pallotta, author of “Uncharitable,” whose private consulting firm created the AIDS rides and 3-day breast cancer rides and who has been the target of scathing criticisms for profiteering.  Pallotta challenges the assumptions that people who run charitable organizations shouldn’t make good salaries and shouldn’t advertise aggressively.  In fact, Pallotta says, the missions of these organizations might be better served if their leadership followed more traditional business practices. 

William has fallen down the rabbit hole of philanthropic metrics, a world in which up can look like down — and vice versa. 

There’s two perspectives here:  what’s good for the non-profit, and what’s good for the donor.  If you’re worried about how well your donations might be put to use by a charitable organization, I propose three steps you can take to reduce your anxiety (see bottom of post).

What’s good for the non-profit may be good for its mission

There may be instances in which a non-profit has a good cause but little access to staff or volunteers who can “farm” for new donors or shake the trees (sorry, bad pun) for lapsed members or donors.  In that case, you could argue that some money raised would be better than no money raised.  Organizations shouldn’t assume, however, that because they don’t bear the risk of the investment in the tactical campaign, they don’t face a potential cost.  For example, one Sacramento charitable organization may have suffered some damage to its reputation when Sacramento Bee subscribers read that the organization had received less than half of the money raised by a commercial fundraiser that re-upped people with lapsed memberships.  It’s not much of a step for donors to start to question any of the solicitations they receive from an organization that showed up on the Attorney General’s “naughty” list, even if the solicitation turns out to be directly from the non-profit and not the “naughty” commercial fundraiser.

The onus is on the non-profit not only to critically shop commercial fundraisers and validate their numbers with happy non-profit customers, but to consider the risk to their reputation if a fundraiser keeps too much for its own overhead or profit.

What donors should care about

What should donors care about most:  whether their dollars go to direct service, with little skimmed off; or whether the organization is making a real impact?   There are steps that donors can take if their primary concern is providing money for direct service (I’ll get to those in a minute).  But too much focus is placed on non-profit overhead ratios – and that focus on low, low overhead can actually limit organizations’ effectiveness.  Lucy Bernholz pokes holes in this traditional means of measuring the effectiveness of non-profits by noting:

“Think about it this way – in what other area of your life do you deliberately seek out the product, service, location, or experience that is being made available in the cheapest possible fashion? We don’t pick restaurants because they forgo cleanliness, we don’t buy clothes we think will fall apart, we don’t choose schools for our kids because the administration is keeping costs down and not supporting teachers, and we don’t make travel arrangements because we know the airline we’ve selected skimps on maintenance.”   


  1. In the words of my old boss (and my mother, for that matter), “Do your homework.  Start by asking people you know who are involved in community service.  I want to hear that a cause or organization has attracted some people who I know to give or get involved.  I like to look at publications or visit the operation to get a sense of the organization’s bonafides.  Check out charitynavigator.org or guidestar.org for similarly-formatted information about the organization you’re considering supporting (but heed the caution about relying on administrative ratios as an indicator of organizational effectiveness).
  2. If you don’t have the time to check it out, find a resource that will do the homework for you.  United Way has updated its workplace campaign approach to enable people to give directly to projects they care about, and it has established aggressive goals for insuring more kids, preparing foster youths for independent lives, preventing child abuse and getting more kids to finish high school.  Follow this link to the Capital Region info as an example.
  3. Look at organizations that practice “endorsement philanthropy” defined by Lucy Berholz as occurring “when institutions, such as foundations, make a deliberate effort to promote and stand behind the organizations that they have selected to fund”… (and when) “a trusted entity shares both its process for decision making and its own decisions, gets some real information to those who can use it..”    Check out foundations whose work you admire, or some of the online donor marketplaces that select organizations and projects, such as socialactions.com (which is actually an aggregator), change.org and kiva.org.  My only concern about many of these online donor marketplaces is that they focus primarily on global giving.  I give globally, too, but I have strong feelings about involvement “right here in River City” (Sacramento).

1 Comment

Filed under Outcomes, Uncategorized

All-ee all-ee outcome please!

Outcomes matter.  Just ask a Tampa Bay Rays fan.  Likewise, if I buy a pair of those “Not Your Daughter’s Jeans” jeans for over $100 a pop, they better not make my muffin top look worse.  Outcomes may be even more critical to non-profits – even small ones – as pressure to achieve results increases from donors.


Recently, I had the opportunity to review a draft grant proposal for a small not-for-profit that provides emergency assistance.  In communications terms, food aid isn’t a very sexy topic.  Short-term assistance isn’t going to fix poverty, the root problem. And it isn’t surrounded by the buzz enjoyed by new attempts to provide systemic relief, like microfinance.


Lacking tens of thousands of dollars for a well structured longitudinal study, what’s a small non-profit to do?  Most list their outcomes as what I would call process or activity measures:  e.g. how many received food supplies.  As one online resource suggested, in the case of emergency relief programs, outcomes may simply equal the outputs.  Food distributed, food received.


Unfortunately, I don’t think that cuts the mustard with many grant-makers or with younger donors who expect non-profits to compete for their dollars and attention.  Call it a beauty contest if you want to, but the fact is that non-profits will have to do more to point to long-term benefit.


So here’s the suggestion.  While a small non-profit may not have the resources for “elegant” evaluation studies, they can pore over the wealth of research that is now available online.  Government sources are a great place to start (in the case of food aid, USDA has an extensive research program).  Academicians publish studies in peer-reviewed journals that are often available on a website.


While these evaluations may not specific to your program, they serve as a valuable proof point to your non-profit’s claims that you make a difference. 


A study by Forrester found that Gen X and Y go to the web first (by text or computer) as they seek information about causes they might support.  These audiences, in particular, want to give their money to a cause or organization that can assure them it is making a difference.  Market research conducted in late July by Grizzard Communications Group shows that younger donors (age 25–34) planned to actually increase giving while other age groups planned to give the same or less.  

Check out the summary of the research here



Yes, this holiday giving season will likely be painful for charitable organizations, but keep in mind that there may be opportunities to reach new markets – if you’ve got a message that compels them to pick you.  I’d love to hear what you’re doing to sharpen up your messages about outcomes.


Filed under Outcomes