If outcome measurement improves programs, does it also improve grantmaking?  GMA recently hosted a candid conversation about evaluation in the context of nonprofit-grantmaker relationships.

Participants representing a range of nonprofits and a cross-section of our foundation clients quickly agreed that measuring to learn makes sense, but measuring to say you’ve measured does not.  If the data doesn’t matter to the organization, it won’t matter to funders either.

What emerged from this discussion were suggestions for improving communications about impact that are grounded in common sense — “common” in that they advance the work of both partners in the grantmaking contract, and “sensible” because they can be accomplished within existing funder-nonprofit relationships, using established communication channels.

For 10 common sense ideas  Continue Reading »

CLIENT ADVISORY

Use the knowledge at your fingertips to stay on track

The philanthropic sector is more enthusiastic than ever about measurement and evaluation.  In this era of analytics and infographics, some foundations are using dashboards to consolidate the information they need to stay focused on what matters most. The dashboard, configured to reflect their particular mission and goals, becomes a springboard for strategic discussions and organizational learning.

This collection of indicators – a dashboard or a scorecard – is updated and referred to on a consistent, recurring basis.  The visual presentation of simple graphs and brief narrative in one or two pages focuses on the essential elements of measuring results.  In this article, we are referring to grantmaking results.

Independent of foundation size or payout amount, measurement is part of an effective decision-making process. With the right information, both grantmakers and grantees stand to learn, adapt and accelerate progress towards their goals; they can assess their impact. But gathering and analyzing data can be expensive and time consuming.

Continue Reading »

NPO CONVERSATION

Nonprofit leaders are accustomed to justifying their continuous need for operating support in appeals to potential donors. In a “proposal letter” written in June of 1788, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart makes his case to benefactor Johann Michael VonPuchberg :

“If you will do me this kindness, I shall primo (being thus provided) be able to make necessary payments when they are due and therefore more easily, whereas I now continually delay and must then often pay out at once all I have received, and that at the most inconvenient moment. Secondo, I shall be able to work with an easier mind and a lighter heart, and thus earn more.”

While Mozart may not be a model of good nonprofit management, his second point still resonates: funders do tend to favor financially secure organizations whose leaders are able to lead with “easy minds” and “light hearts.”

However, requests for unrestricted support have long made foundations uneasy. In the first place, private foundation resources are no match for the nonprofit sector’s operating needs, which are vast and growing. Secondly, by giving up control over exactly how a grant is spent, the connection between the investment and its results can be obscured. How should today’s funders think about the potential impact of grants for operations?

Continue Reading »