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 

A few common sense ideas about evaluation for nonprofits:

  • Share what’s working – Clearly, evaluation data helps a nonprofit describe the value of its programs to funders, providing real information on outcomes and positive change.  A strong proposal communicates actual accomplishments, described in the narrative and supported by data.
  • Share what’s not working – Determining what about your approach to an issue doesn’t accomplish your intended goals can be more valuable than learning what does, as the road to success is seldom straight.  What didn’t work?  What did you accomplish instead?
  • Use evidence to evolve – Demonstrate the practical value of measuring outcomes by identifying how your program model has improved in response to evaluation results.
  • Build relationships – Candid conversations with funders about unanticipated consequences or unmet goals build trust, and trust builds relationships.  Grantmakers are more likely to risk supporting untried approaches, or programs beyond the scope of their usual grantmaking guidelines, if they have confidence that the lessons learned will be applied to program enhancement.
  • Define success – Foundation trustees are not necessarily experts in the work of your nonprofit organization.  In many cases, trustees learn about the latest pressing issues and possible solutions to problems, at least in part, from the proposals they review.  Clear summaries of your goals, measures, and findings help grantmakers build a base of knowledge about what really works in your field, which they can apply to future allocations decisions.
  • Redefine impact – Seeking maximum results with limited dollars, foundations can be forgiven for occasionally confusing numbers served with lives changed.  Measuring and communicating both the immediate and the longer-term outcomes of nonprofit programs can help funders see the real value of applying focused, sustained, in-depth attention to intractable problems.

And some common sense ideas for grantmakers:

  • Support evaluation – Supplement program grants with additional funds targeted specifically toward assessing what those programs are able to accomplish.
  • Support collaboration and its evaluation – Foundations that encourage collaboration among nonprofits can facilitate that process, and assess its efficacy, by providing support for both planning and evaluating nonprofit partnerships.
  • Be patient – Lasting positive change takes time, and trial and error is often the best way to accomplish it.
  • Challenge nonprofits to try new approaches – Most nonprofits are full of ideas about new ways to address their organizational missions, but many lack the resources to test the value of these alternate programs and approaches.  Foundations have the flexibility to encourage, support, and evaluate innovation.  

Finally, what came out of this conversation was mutual encouragement to take more risk.  For nonprofits, that means following up on those exciting new ideas, and for funders, it means supporting untried approaches to learn whether they might succeed.  It means progressing from studying fish to caring for the oceans.*  For both nonprofits and grantmakers, that’s just common sense.

——-

*For the New England Aquarium, measuring how young participants’ attitudes changed as a result of traditional educational programs led to a dramatic reassessment of what such programming might accomplish. “Ten years ago we were teaching kids about fish.  Now we are engaging communities in caring about the ocean.”  Program planners took the risk of adapting the curriculum on the basis of evaluation findings they hadn’t expected, then found funding for this bold new approach, and now their programs build ocean stewards through exploration of complex issues like water pollution and the location of shipping lane.

Gracelaw Simmons has been a consultant with GMA Foundations since 1998.  She administers the Sailors’ Snug Harbor of Boston foundation and serves as the grants advisor to the Linden Foundation and the Ludcke Foundation.