Empax is all about communication. This isn’t news to anyone who know us. Empax is also deeply concerned about evaluation and social impact measurement. This may be news to some of you (in which case it’s time you know how integral this dimension is becoming to our work).
The fusion of evaluation and communication is a natural one for us. And we’re glad to see that others are starting to recognize the value in this combination as well.
In an interview with Gene Cochrane of The Duke Endowment, FSG Social Impact Advisors highlight some of the emerging trends in this field. While the overarching message is that the link between social impact measurement and the communication of evaluation findings is crucial to the advancement of the nonprofit sector is clear, there are a few other key insights worth sharing.
1. It’s OK if evaluation outcomes are negative. There seems to be a pervasive fear that if you measure yourself and the results are anything less than perfection, you might as well kiss your funding goodbye. But let’s be honest: Foundations and donors are people too, and they understand the concept of trial and error. If you give them the opportunity, you might find out that they’re willing to work with you to come up with the best solutions. Finding out there are ways to improve is almost better than finding out that things are just “fine”. Sure there is risk involved in letting your funders see that a program isn’t working as well as it could, but there is also opportunity to learn from this, make it better, and enhance the situation for everyone.
2. Every nonprofit is different, which means every set of metrics will be different. The vast spectrum of qualities that define success is no doubt a reason while social impact measurement has taken such a long time to come around. But now that we can all accept the differences that exist throughout the sector, let’s vow to treat each measurement endeavor as its own, unique undertaking. Yes, this takes commitment from both parties. But if a foundation and a grantee are both truly dedicated to accurate evaluation, they’ll take the time to set up the boundaries for what defines success – on a case to case basis – from the very outset of every project.
3. Taking it one step further doesn’t have to mean double the work. If your organization is going to spend the time, energy and resources on gathering metrics and sorting out what they mean, it’s an opportunity missed (to say the least) to not communicate these findings to your stakeholders in the most effective ways possible. But this doesn’t mean it’s a 2-step project (1. Collect data, 2. Figure out how to tell the story of that data). As Cochrane points out, you can weave evaluation and communications methodologies into your organizational structure. These two practices be built in to what your organization is already doing: Creating an integrated process will streamline your overall activities.
Foundations want their grantees to become better at measuring themselves, and their willing to be part of the solution. So use them! Turn to them for additional support in creating systems or getting consulting. Knowing the successes – or challenges – of their grantees helps them operate more efficiently, too. And end beneficiaries will ultimately be served better once we all get on board with this. So it’s a win-win-win. What’s not to like?
Image Credit: Darren Hester